User talk:DGG

“ 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

Reminders
Topical Archives:
Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , IPC, Fiction, Bilateral relations. WP:Academic things & people, Journals, Sourcing, BLP
General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb, Mar-Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec 
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec

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:

• If you can fix the article, I'd advise you to do so very quickly, before it gets nominated for regular deletion
• 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.
• An article must have 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases)
• To use material from your web site, you must release the content 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.
• For articles about an organization, see our Organizations FAQ (a wonderful page written by Durova, from whom I learned my approach to people writing articles with COI.

---

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)

magazines...and speedy

...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)

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)

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)

)

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)

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)

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)

Fringe

In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee, you wrote but situations of a single person with a completely far fringe view are dealt with fairly well already. There are cases where a real-world minority- or fringe-view is overrepresented on Wikipedia. There are also cases where a majority- or wikipedia-majority-view silences a minority view or reduces their weight well below their real-world due weight. This can happen by one side outmaneuvering the other into a behavior violation or by simply driving them away from the project in frustration. I don't think there is a good solution, other than to have affected articles watched by people who are informed about the article's subject matter but with no emotional stake in the article. This tends to happen more on articles on political or social topics, where way too many editors have a personal agenda, and on articles about people, places, or groups, where fanboys may succeed in turning the article into a virtual press release. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

as I said there, I think that dueling by taunting each other into unacceptable actions is not a really rational approach. . Perhaps it survives because the people who have been here a while tend to know just how far they can safely go & some of them have gotten quite good at it. But perhaps also it works because the people who are for good or less good reasons committed to an agenda with a zeal and devotion and purpose which transcend rational argument tend to be rather easy to lose proportion and descend into unacceptable actions. There is nothing wrong with zealotry when one is right, but it has to be pursued elsewhere--those who care more about their cause than objective editing encyclopedia are a danger to the encyclopedia.

Unfortunately, the attempt to deal with it otherwise tend to amount to an appeal to authority, which does not do much better--one can find authorities for almost anything. And so one argues about the relative merits of the authorities. People both in the right and wrong of it (as if w could tell) are equally likely to what to prevent their opponents from making a fair case. What is necessary is a way to determine what objective editing is, and enforce it. My current thoughts are mandatory mediation with enforceable remedies--not by subject experts necessarily, but by people with common sense and proven impartiality.DGG (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

BIO has become very nebulous, especially because one can interpret "significant coverage" and NOT NEWS to produce any result whatsoever for many of the articles you have in mind. We need to make up our mind abut what depth of local figures we intend to cover. We need to make up our mind about whether to cover the central figures of human interest stories. And then stick to it, whatever the decision is. You and I would probably disagree on one or both of these in general, I at least would much rather accept almost any stable compromise rather than fight each of them from over-general principles. DGG (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We'd probably be closer together than you might think. Yes, the community as a whole does need to thrash out local notability-- something that a narrow constructionist can rely on but which would allow some flexibility. Any standard, even one I loathe, would be better than none. As you say, any result is possible the way things are. A dice roll would be less stressful and do as well. This is why I avoid AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Stress

as with any democratic type of process, it works better if the good people stay in. The way I avoid stress is by commenting once or twice, and then not looking back--either my arguments is accepted, or not,and then on to the next. I generally do not look back to see what the result is, or I would get too often angry, or at least disappointed. Not that it's a game for me, but that I can be effective only by keeping detached. DGG (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussion, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines--SaraNoon (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

archiving

I no longer remember how it was done but if someone knows or wants to talk to the bot operator, look at what's done for the museums project. In archiving it creates an index which includes topic and which archive it's in. I don't know if it can be done retroactively. TravellingCari 12:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at documentation, though I can change the names of the archives, the indexing is done as it makes the archive. I would have to remerge everything. What happened of course, is that a/I never imagined at the first they would get so large b/I started with topical archives, and this takes more maintenance than Ive actually done, and , of course 3/ there have been some very long postings here, not all by me,some interesting enough that I want to keep visible. Expect slow improvement. till and maybe a new normal system in January 09 DGG (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Indexes, what indexes?
2. At User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo there is a pointer to User:HBC Archive Indexerbot. I think this is the bot alluded to above by Travellingcari, currently used by WP:MUSEUM. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

prod

"unreferenced" is not a reason for deletion. Unreferenced and unnotable, maybe."tried but could not find any sources for notability" much more convincing--when you say something like that, I'd probably accept your view. But of the 2 you marked unreferenced, one seems to have had a ref . tho not a good one Blaqstarr--I didnt check further, and the other Esa Maldita Costilla, is probably notable given the performers involved. DGG (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess our standards differ. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your instincts were right on this one, DGG. I know this is kind of necro-bumping, but better late than never... Chubbles (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 19#Comparison_of_web_based_file_managers

You raise an excellent point there. I seem to be averaging a DRV on one of my closures every second day (although the majority are being endorsed). The recent phenomenon of DRVs when one isn't satisfied with the result, but dressed up as "certain arguments weren't addressed, so the admin should have closed it my way" is worrisome, not least because a DRV would have been even more certain if the debate had been closed the other way. This is liable to put good admins off closing AFDs because of a perceived stigma in having your decision posted at DRV, especially when users decline to discuss matters with the closer first as the DRV instructions twice require (a matter about which we have repeatedly butted heads). Where can we go from here? Stifle (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this down, in case you missed it. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

still working on an adequate response.DGG (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Refining AfD outcomes

Hi. I read your comments at the AfD and DRV of List of Who Framed Roger Rabbit characters. In particular, I noticed your suggestion to alter AfD/DPR. I started a discussion WT:AFD#Merge outcome, based in part on my interpretation of your comments and concerns. Flatscan (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding at the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

54]] (T C) 12:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN

Since you have had repeated experience with this user's AFDs like, I thought I'd contact you. This user's AFD behavior is appaling especially how he refuses to bundle nominations in the same universe for which he uses identical reasonings. He also continually fails to consider the option to merge or redirect without intervention of deletion and makes no evident efforts to look for sources himself (there's a difference between unverified and unverifiable), instead preferring to force the issue by nominating for AFD (which causes a 5-day deadline for improvement) and which is specifically considered to be improper.

The articles in question might well require care, merging or even deletion, but the way he goes about it is unneccesarily terse and bitey.

I think it's time to launch an RFC. Would you consider helping gather evidence and supporting it? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Before you start, you might consider seeing how the RfC/U on Gavin.collins goes first, since different facets of the same issue are involved.DGG (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An offer of help, other inclusionists, and suggestions

Your name came up prominently at Talk:Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia#Prominent inclusionists? I was wondering:

1. How I can help?
2. If there are other inclusionists you can suggest I talk to, or if there are any groups you belong too.
3. Any suggestions about how I can help form policy to be more inclusive.

Thank you, Inclusionist (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the best way of helping attain a better and more inclusive encyclopedia is by finding sources for worthy articles that do not have them, especially those immediately under attack. I see you are already a member of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. You can also look for articles in areas of interest to you that might be challenged in Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup or at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. This can be done most effectively after learning carefully the rules for proper sourcing given at WP:Reliable sources and the talk page and noticeboard associated with it. We already have a considerable amount of discussion, and it is practical work that is needed more. It is easier to talk about why articles should be kept, than to do the work to keep them. And when you do participate in Afds, never do so without a good argument that the majority of people will accept; weak arguments are counterproductive. Remember that by any rational standard most of the articles there should indeed be deleted. I find a good way to keep perspective is to a do a little WP:New page patrol, and to see and identify all the junk that really must be kept out of the encyclopedia. If you want to help policy become more inclusive, first think carefully about just what you want to have included and why it would enhance rather than diminish the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep

Hi DGG. You may be surprised to see me championing anything regarding "keep" !votes, but you might find this discussion about this AfD discussion interesting. My conclusion is that WP:Speedy keep might do well to have at least one non-bad faith / non-nominator-generated reason, such as WP:SNOW. Thoughts? Bongomatic 18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have elsewhere commented just now [1] that the reason for speedy keep should be a "clearly mistaken nomination": or something of the sort, without implying anything about good faith. Except in extreme circumstances, we can't really judge people's motivations, and they are not necessarily relevant. for example, I readily admit that the motivation of one of my principal opponents in some recent discussions is their good faith and honest and forthright desire to reduce the Wikipedia coverage of fiction, which they in all honesty think excessive. That they are totally wrong and will destroy one of the key positive features of Wikipedia does not affect their good faith.

SNOW is a different matter, and I think we use it altogether too rapidly, because we should give a chance for people to say things that we might not have thought of at first. I think it would be a good idea if almost all afds ran a full 5 days =120 hours.

As for engadget, it closed before I had a chance to comment. I think the nomination was about was wrong as a nomination can be, and showed some inability to understand either the article, or a temporary lapse in understanding our guidelines. I think the nominator sometimes does interpret our guidelins in a way that i would not, but that at most is a persistent error, or non-standard viewpoint. Bad faith in a deletion nomination would be if someone wanted to delete the article of a competitor, or about an organisation that espoused a different ideology, or an article written by an opponent here or in the RW, or to make a POINT irrelevant to the merits of the article, or to do deliberate harm to the encyclopedia, or out of purely reckless vandalism. None of these were present here that i know of. DGG (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to reach a consensus (or at least spark further discussion) at Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Summary up to now. Feel like weighing in? Bongomatic 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

useful general remark

::if anyone wishes to fight with me, this page is the place; if anyone wishes to fight with someone else, please do it elsewhere. DGG (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The notability problem in a nutshell

Though it remains in the policy, there are now many exceptions to: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. - quoted from WP:V (There are a number of areas where this is true, but primary among the one that concerns us here is fiction.) There are several ambiguities: the first is the meaning of the plural of sources, for it is accepted and elswhere stated that ones sufficiently reliable third party source is sufficient. Second, there are many cases where it is clear that first party sources such as official documents from government sources are sufficient to show the notability of the agencies concerned. Third, we routinely accept the probability that there will be such sources. Fourth, the sources for writing an article are not in the least limited to third party sources, for the primary source of the work itself is accepted as sufficient and in fact usually the best source for content. Fifth, and crucial here, is the distinction between "topic" and "article"-- a key argument above is whether a spin offarticle on a character is to be judged as a separate article. The sixth is the lack of a requirement that the third party source be substantial. DGG (talk)

and we see how notability is used as an excuse to delete secrets that are merely hard to source like DCEETA. we have the spectacle of people saying that the NYTimes is not reliable, and it's just synthesis. thanks for the kind comments Dogue (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

there seems to be a recent trend to be as perverse in nominating as possible. See today's nominations for the chairman of AOL, and.a major dam. I think they may be intended as a POINTy demonstration that common sense is an unreliable criterion, or a proof by example that WPedians can be shown to be lacking in that mental quality. DGG (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What else? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Spreadin the word.....

From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work indeed from the two of you! This is the sort of thing that can make a practical positive difference to the encyclopedia! DGG (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You are me

Sorry David, but you are apparently me. --David Shankbone 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

all David's are actually clones; we use disguises to conceal the fact, but they don't work 100%. DGG (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Shankbone is the cabal. --KP Botany (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

the person who does the photos can control the world. DGG (talk) 09:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're awesome by me! I originally thought the page was about me, but apparently it is about you. Jeez, if you're going to have haters hating on you, at least get your name right! I'm guessing they put as much thought and research into their self-promotion as they did into that Facebook group. --David Shankbone 14:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Prods

You have lost me when you say that "unresolved issues is not a good enough reason to delete". Taking Manhunt (urban game) for example, the issues raised are as follows:

It does not cite any references or sources.

t needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.
It may contain original research or unverifiable claims.
Its factual accuracy is disputed.
It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling.
It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

Its lead section requires expansion.

In other words, it is an extremely poor article that is almost certainly providing misinformation to the readers. So why keep it? Are you perhaps being pedantic and trying to insist that I duplicate all of the above as the prod reason instead of merely referring to the loud and clear issues that appear immediately below the prod box?

We are supposed to be providing the readers with a credible encyclopaedia, not preserving patent rubbish. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• In the case of the above article the prod wasn't correct as the article had previously had a prod removed, AfD therefore is the only way to go. RMHED. 19:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As for your question though,since it applies equally to Prod and AfD:
You should not nominate an article for deletion if it can be rescued: see WP:BEFORE and WP:Deletion Policy. It is an excellent idea to remove rubbish, but only if it cannot be improved. The mere failure to have improved an article is not a reason for deletion by itself, no matter how long it has been unimproved. Let's look at those reasons:

1. We do not remove articles for being unsourced. We remove them for being unsourceable. You need to do a proper search. For games of this sort, I think this should include printed books on children's games. Atthe very least before nominating, you should check Google Books.
2. The second reason is just like the one above; it does need them, & the thing to do is to look for them. It's not a reason for deletion unless there are none to be found. (t
3. If the factual accuracy is disputed, then it should be edited, not deleted. The disputes about accuracy should be discussed on the talk page and resolved. It would only be a reason for deletion if you were prepared to show it did not exist at all, or that there was so much dispute that it was impossible to write even a brief article.
4. If copy editing is needed, then it should be done. The need for this is never a reason for deletion.
5. Ditto for general cleanup. If it needs it, do it. This too is never a reason for deletion.
6. If the lead section needs expansion, expand it. This again is never a reason for deletion.

Thus, none of the unresolved issues were a good enough reason for deletion, just as I said. I hope this explanation helps, more than my edit summary did. As a general rule, what we do with poor articles is improve them. What we do with misinformation is correct it, if we can show it incorrect. If you know enough about the game to make these statements, you know enough to help the article. Articles of this sort do tend to attract dubious material, and need proper attention. Then Wikipedia will be a more credible encyclopedia and not provide patent rubbish. I see you are interested in these games, so I look forward to seeing your improvements in this set of articles. DGG (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see you mean well but you are being very unrealistic. If the original editor will not make the effort to provide proper sources, why should anyone else? You have to remember that other editors don't have the time to do "proper searches" or expand the lead or edit factual inaccuracies and original research. Quite often, when you find a bad article, it has been created by some redlink userid who has made no other "contributions". Best thing to do is get rid of it or you end up wasting valuable time. If the creator is a genuine editor, he can always come back and recreate it. --Orrelly Man (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

why? because of our Deletion policy, as clearest expressed at WP:BEFORE, our need to encourage new contributors, and WP:BITE. It is you who unrealistically expect perfection at the first edit. It is every bit as valuable and necessary to fix articles as contribute new ones. DGG (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

New York Public Library classes

Hi David, I've started something at Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library‎. Hopefully this can be a space for us to work out our ideas, and I look forward to your contributions.--Pharos (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Threshold knowledge

I'm not interested. If other users want to keep this kind of article, that's up to them. Presumably you looked at it and made your decision; I looked at it and made mine.

If you look at my talk page, you'll see lots of examples of people moaning about their articles being deleted and lots of other examples of me having a proper discussion with them, restoring articles and helping contributors to improve them. I stand by everything I've said on the subject. Deb (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear DGG, thank you for your input in this case. I hope I was able to proceed through procedures in a level-headed manner. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at User talk:Deb#Threshold knowledge and, if you feel it would be of value, offer a second opinion. Although perhaps nothing more really should be said... Bondegezou (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

NAS

I believe I used this utility to convert a CSV list into a wiki table. — BRIAN0918 • 2009-02-26 17:50Z

Eleazar (painter)

Hi, thanks for your opinion and for giving me the chance to recreate my article. Because of the recommendation of Chick Bowen, I want to ask you if it's possible to rewrite my article because I'm not allowed to do it; this is what Chick Bowen said about the recreation: "Recreation permitted, but will have to be a sourced, neutral article. If the subject wishes to proceed with recreation, he is urged to seek help from other editors to ensure that conflict of interest is avoided. It would be much better if someone other than the subject wrote it; perhaps someone commenting below would like to do so?" Thanks again. A greeting from Barcelona, Spain.--Eleazar1954 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-created the article in my user space as User:DGG/Eleazar (painter). First step is to add specific references to reviews of his shows or specific paintings in published sources-- please do this--you can edit that page. For now, have removed the paragraphs discussing the general features of the oeuvre, but they will appear in the edit view between a <!-- and a --> mark as comments; they must be supported by specific references and rewritten as quotations from those references. The items in the references section must be moved to the places in the text that they support. I recognize you are in a sense uniquely qualified to comment on this--but it can't be written that way. I've also cleaned up a little. See what you can do with references & I will take a look in a few days.. DGG (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for the re-creation of the article. I think it’s OK. I have add a Curriculum Vitae reference for supporting what the article explains about exhibitions and collections of Eleazar. Finally, I haven’t put any more specific references or reviews because all are write in paper (not Internet references apart from those that you write and the reviews in the Website of the artist). I hope that everything it’s OK for you.Really thanks again and a greeting.--Eleazar1954 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Were you able...

...to read the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for asking, still not yet. I'd appreciate a copy directly.DGG (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Libraries & the Cultural Record

I thought this new article might interest you. Cheers. Thanks for all your help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Eleazar

Hello, I want to ask you if there has been any problem with the re-creation of the article that you rewrote about Eleazar (painter)User:DGG/Eleazar (painter). In any case, I want you to know that I already did (added) what you said to me. See you,--Eleazar1954 (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Clickety click

DGG, I thought you might have something worthwhile to say about this AfD and also a relevant part of "WP:CREATIVE" (on which see also my comment). -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, I'm enjoying this: DGG (ever the inclusionist) tending toward deletion of what's unenthusiastically backed by Hoary (ever the deletionist). Your comment on the meaninglessness of those particular library holdings is spot on: this says less about Powell than it does about the inadequacy of critical thinking behind "WP:CREATIVE". Um, anyway, could you revisit your comment in the AfD? As of a few seconds ago, it needed formatting and other attention. -- Hoary (talk)

I think I've said delete more often than keep today & the last few days. I think that's because fewer articles have been nominated for deletion the last week or so- by and large only the worst stuff is still being nominated, the passable stuff isn't. As for WP:Creative, where it does seem to work is that visual artists in conventional media who have works in the permanent collection of two or more museums does seem to indicate notability. It's easy to delineate things that certainly do indicate certain notability. It's easy to find careers that don't. The question is whether there's a concept of "notable, but not very notable," & what to do with such. DGG (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

mediawikiblacklist

I ask you because you're active there--am I correct that any enWP admin can deal with things also? DGG (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although you need at least some knowledge of regular expressions. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Students' Guide

I noticed your involvement with Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library. I've got a draft of what is called the Wikipedia Student's Guide, which isn't a perfect fit for those getting instruction at the library, but might be useful. In any case, if you have any suggestions, they would be welcomed. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Extinct editors

this must be one of the funniest AfD comments I ever came across! Owen× ☎ 16:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks!DGG (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

well-worded AfD.

Nicely said! tedder (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I might have said keep a year ago in order to establish the principle, but the principle is firmly enough established, that we can be a little flexible in interpreting it. DGG (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish we could get WP:SCH to be policy. It would make things like this much easier to deal with. (I thought you'd already commented on that AfD- you haven't) tedder (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said AfD

Put absolutely perfectly. Incidentally, if you haven't seen it in the morass of my talkpage I replied on the Oo7565 matter. I'm still not sure a ban would be the way to go – I suspect he'd come straight back under another name, and at least this way someone can keep an eye on him. On an unrelated matter, you might want to take a second look at AFD/Brindle family; I've still to find a single reliable source for this article, and every one of the "sources" provided in the AFD is the complete opposite of the article. (The article is about the family being a crime family; not a single source mentions any member of this family ever having been convicted of any crime.) – iridescent 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the connection between Alan16 and Oo7565? tedder (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

none that I know of--Iridescent was giving a single comment on 3 separate issues. DGG (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy DGG's Day!

DGG has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as DGG's day! For being one of our more sensible, clueful users, enjoy being the Star of the day, DGG! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 03:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

It's about time! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Edwin Osgood Grover

If you have a moment and feel like it, would you mind a look here? I *think* the subject is probably notable but given when he lived, finding sources is a challenge. Some of the scholar results seem to fit, but others seem entirely unrelated. There are also a number of news hits, but they're behind pay gates. Know that they're not required to be publicly accessible to use, I just can't judge content to establish notability from what I can't see -- but thinking that quantity here might get past WP:PROF more so than quality. Thoughts? StarM 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's enough to tell. The NYT isnt substantial, 51 words, butt he very fact they gave it an article at all is significant. That he then published a long essay in the NYT Bk review is significant. The LA Times article is a signif ref. also. But the most useful general approach is something fairly new: WorldCat identities; best technique is to find a book by him in the regular WorldCat, then click on the author's name.: [2]. Significant author & lecturer. Meets WP:BIO. DGG (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know about WC IDentities, will have a look at it when I have a few moments. I had a feeling he was probably notable. ThanksStarM 03:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's new, technically still experimental. I love it--the info was always there, but this saves a great deal of work compiling it from the individual book entries. DGG (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources

If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advise or contribute. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Contribute new ones I can not, but I suggest that you need an explanation of why you consider each source reliable. possible a sentence or two for each, especially the ones without articles, or perhaps even on the talk p. I made a change to give direct access for the first two as an example. . Revert if you don't like them. I know it violates the usual rule for external links, but this is a special case--the point of a p. like this is to be convenient & it probably won't be in mainspace. . Where are you thinking of putting it, and under what title: I suggest: "Reliable sources for horror films" in WT space, and then I and others could do some similar and then we could have a list -- and of course a category. DGG (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I do much appreciate your looking in. I have just given the page a few more tweaks to gently address ongoing mis-interpretations of WP:RS and WP:NF by well-meaning editors. Or maybe I am simply too liberal (chuckle), but guideline IS guideline. I like your suggested title, as my own is simply a descriptive of the work-in-process. I decided to "source" back to the relevent page of each various site's pages that explains their rationale, editing practices, and editorial staff... rather than having a linkfarm... in order to allow editors wondering about their sources to have a direct link to the page. And pardon my innocence, but what is "WT Space"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

at the simple end, I meant WP space -- the pages where guidelines are put as in WP:N. WT was a typo, it does exist, as a functional abbreviation for the WP space talk pages--the abbreviation for the talk page of WP:N, is WT:N. Next, the reference to articles would do for the ones that have articles. At least a word or two must be said about the others, or else you're just asserting they're ok on your say-so. And for the ones that have articles, the articles must indicate why they're not only notable, but reliable sources. My view is that it still helps to have a guide of some sort on the proposed page, not just a listing. DGG (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just got in from a shoot. Will do as advised and give a brief description of each (not already with wiki articles) and then use the current refs to cite the description and assertion of RS. I want the reader to be able to follow the refs to the same information I have found. And if I find other sources, I will add them as well. Any suggestions for my preliminary sections describing why the article exists? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's tricker, because this should be crafted as a precedent. Tomorrow. (Question: might be be well to discuss some places that are not good sources?) DGG (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

from a recent deletion review: how to close XfDs

judging consensus is trying to evaluate what the other responsible people there think should be done. One can evaluate arguments, but only to see which ones are not in conformity with policy. I completely disagree one can choose which policy of competing ones applies, or how to interpret policy: both are for the community to decide (or whatever small fraction is paying attention). I do not argue to convince the closer in particular of the merits of my argument, but to convince others who may come and look at the discussion and give an opinion. The closer should follow whatever policy-based argument a clear majority agrees with, unless it's totally irrational. DGG (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources about journalists

Hi DGG

Calling on you in your capacity as librarian, not admin. Do you know any good places to find information about journalists, rather than articles by them? I have just started a stub article on Michael Theodoulou who is an extremely prolific and I think well-regarded journalist. Any thoughts on how to find citations relevant to an article on him?

Thank you, Bongomatic 06:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

this has always been a problem. It would be much easier --as in almost all professions--to find non-directory information about historical than current figures. There are two fairly comprehensive specialized indexes: Communication and Mass Media Complete from Ebsco and "Communication Abstracts" from Sage, if you can find them. Lacking them, the best is probably the type of general database one finds in a library: (multiple exact titles of each, with different degrees of coverage): Proquest (ABI Inform, Periodical Abstracts) ) or Ebsco (Academic Search, Business Search) or Thompson Gale (Academic ASAP) , or Wilson (Business Periodicals Index , OmniFile). All public libraries have at least a truncated version of one or another, usually available outside the library to residents with a library card. All college libraries have a relatively full version of at least one. Key magazines covering the field include: "American Journalism Review" and "Columbia Journalism Review" There are also a large number of regional newsletter type publications, but almost always everything in them will be of the nature of press releases. General newspaper indexes sometimes work, if you can sort out the articles they themselves have written. DGG (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Managed to get some access but wasn't able to find anything other than by the journalist. Maybe something will turn up eventually. Bongomatic 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

if you let me know by email what your library facilities are I can make some more precise suggestions. DGG (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pirate ships

Hi DGG. Here's an interesting case. Dai Hong Dan is clearly a candidate for deletion as WP:ONEVENT (see all-date Google news archive search—not perfect, but gives you an idea). But it seems that individual ships that were the objects of piracy are somewhat like episodes in a serial. Any thoughts on how to deal with them? Bongomatic 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

all large ships are notable. This one especially. Even if one doubts the first part of the corollary, being taken over by pirates is sufficiently important, whether in the 16th or the 21st century. The problem article is that yacht they took over. Yachts are not necessarily notable, otherwise. DGG (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. What guideline or logic gives rise to the intrinsic notability of every large ship, regardless of coverage? Bongomatic 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

95% consistent practice of AfD for the last 2.5 years, since i first came--and---very soon after--questioned some such articles. I questioned a number of such practices at first, but the longer I'm here, the more impatient I get with AfDs & the more I think that such blanket acceptances are the way to avoid conflict and return to article writing. If it seems reasonable that we should have an article, that's good enough. What we want to keep out is the tabloid fodder and the junk and the spam. Not merely things that people think not quite important enough. DGG (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

from an afd

"It was asked above what the inclusion criteria should be for material like this. the answer, is they can be whatever we want them to be. We make the rules, and we can make whatever exceptions are indicated. It's not as if we were working on someone else's project." DGG (talk)

Notability guideline for News Organizations/Publications

Hi, DGG, could you comment here about the proposal of a new notability guideline for news organizations and publications by OlYeller21? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Once again, thanks for your insightful words DGG. I have to admit that I had to read what you wrote twice to fully grasp what you were saying, because your posting tend to be a little bit deeper and more thoughtful than the average editor.

I admit, I was a little flustered today with your first typically neautral posting on ARS. But then I thought about what you said, and I realized this is exactly what I had been saying all along, that anyone should be welcome to post on any wikiproject (as long as they are not disruptive), you just said it in a more neutral, diplomatic way. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical notability

". Fifth century people are notable per se just by having their names remembered fourteen centuries later. Even if their actual record is scanty, and you can sum up all that's knowable about them in a single paragraph, print encyclopedias brim with stubs of exactly this type. - " [3]. good comment by Smerdis of Tlön, for reuse as needed. DGG (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

merge/move

why not then do as you suggested, restore it and change the title, and then improve it to better NPOV. I'll look here for a reply. DGG (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be better if the two different histories were merged first, so they could be refactored. That might change the length of the History section which would affect the need for a separate article, especially if the rest of "Open access (publishing)" were cleaned up. But I don't really have time for a major rewrite at the moment. -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

if I do it, I;'d have to do it from the separate articles. DGG (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the posts over at the AfD for Johnston are rather scary. It seems that people don't understand notability, or even read the one links that they provide. The one event says that if its a really big event, even minor figures can be notable from it. Then someone put forth an idea that the rest of his life isn't notable so it shouldn't be mentioned. Bah, do they not realize that encyclopedias don't have only "notable" information, or most pages would be empty? The fact that so many people have heard about him and there being over 8 months of coverage, scandal, interviews and the rest makes it all rather mind boggling. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I managed to get Nicolo Giraud up to GA, and I think the current state of the page validates quite a few of your arguments over the years. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

people will say anything if they don't like an article In this case, there's the added factor of the reasons why some people of various political persuasions don't want the article--as they cannot admit it, they are forced to use other reasons. DGG (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

as for Giraud, magnificent work you did there. People who don't know research sometimes do not realize that for any historical figure connected in any substantial way with a famous person or event, there's a web of connections, and there will always be sources. The art of a librarian is not to do research, but to know (by a skill that is not explicitly teachable) where there is, and is not, likely to be material. But at least people here should understand about knowledge networks. The reason Wikipedia is such a good place to work is that we can build our net on top of the pre-existing ones. DGG (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Law enforcement stubs

Hello I don't care to contradict you, but Law enforcement in The Gambia was deleted for exactly this reason, a {{db-empty}} and looking over your contributions, I don't think that you got all of the ones that I tagged; others may have been deleted as well. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do things the way I think correct. It has been known to happen that another admin thinks differently than I about something. In practice, Wikipedia admins get along by not attempting to correct each other every time they disagree. DGG (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Law enforcement in ..

(from my message to Kintetsubuffalo)" The series of articles that you have written Law enforcement in Benin (etc) are ll being nominated by another editor as speedy deletion for lack of content-- As reviewing admin, I think they do not quite meet the conditions for speedy deletion, but they really are not adequate as they are, so I have changed them to proposed deletion, giving you 7 days to improve them with some content and references. I suggest at the very least, date of founding and number of staff, for the various services. DGG (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)"

Sorry, I wrote those two years ago, I don't even know which ones he's nommed and you changed, and if nobody's added content to them in that long, maybe they're not notable. I am in Japan now, so English language source material is nonexistent except for the Internet, and I am pretty sure those orgs don't have websites. Ah well, the people have voted with their keystrokes. Thanks for the heads up. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking it might not be that hard, actually, & I'll give a try. DGG (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

and so it was. Easy actually, once the three multi-vol. encyclopedias on world law enforcement by country were found!! Now to check about the ones that may have gotten deleted, and recover them. DGG (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Pwn

"The article has plenty of room for expansion." Expansion from what sources? Urban Dictionary? Encyclopedia Dramatica? Message boards? Seriously, you'd keep an article on my left big toenail, wouldn't you? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

only if you're left-handed. (making the assumption that,as usual, the dominant hand is the dominant foot also). And only the big toe. I do have standards. DGG (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I actually am left handed. Nice to see that you can come up with a humorous answer to a humorous question too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re your note

Replied on my talk. EyeSerene^talk 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless theft

Hi I have quoted you on my user page. It is attributed, but please remove it if you'd rather it were not there. pablo_hablo. 15:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks for noticing it ! DGG (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been there a while, I've only just got round to confessing! It just seemed to succinctly sum up a way forward away from all the

"You have no standards"
   "Well you would say that because you want to delete everything"
"Inclusionist!"
   "Deletonist!"

rubbish that forms so much of too many talk pages. Mind you, I won't be arguing in favour of articles about 10lb hammer's toes, left, right or hammer any time soon. pablo_hablo. 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kudos, comment & question

Dear David, I salute you for the various ideas expressed, and your sense of integrity. Your experiences from Princeton & Berkeley were also significant credentials to bring to bear. I have a comment about your working group for science and academia. Someone in the group lamented on how to distinguish "men from boys". At least in the science world it's quite easy. Below the obvious Nobel level, the next 2 are well known -- Academicians and Fellows. If WP can include all people on these 2 levels, it'd be quite a complete collection. Of course I'm only speaking about the US situation. I suspect that they have similar pecking order in other countries. Now a question unrelated to the above. When you have a chance, take a look at the discussion page for Deep Ng, and see my proposal to delete. Please advise if it's reasonable, and if so, the next step. Much obliged. --EJohn59 (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

commented there based on general considerations. You do realise it's not the least my subject.DGG (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comments are reasonable & helpful--EJohn59 (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)EJohn59

ECRI

DGG Thanks for any help you can provide so we can get ECRI Institute on Wikipedia. As a proper reference, here is a report from the Agency for Healthcare and research Quality, listing us in the Bibliography, page 56, #9 https://www.ecri.org/Documents/EPC/Cardiac_Catheterization_in_Freestanding_Clinics.pdf CKKocherecri (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you need more than a passing mention, or a listing in a bibliography. You need to find an article or news report that discusses the organization in a substantial way. It does not have to be entirely about you, but it has to present sufficient material that a person can tell that you are important. I think you might be, but it needs to be shown by actual evidence that people in published work discuss the organization, not just mention it. If necessary, I may look myself, though not immediately, but if you keep track of what is written about you, it can facilitate things. I hope you have a library, but at least you must be affiliated with some organization that does: ask a librarian for help. I am one myself, but I can't personally do all the research for all the Wikipedia articles.DGG (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another - we are part of the World Health Organization - I'll see if I can find a reference there. See below. CKKocherecri (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC) http://www.frsoft.com/pages/InfoPage.aspx?PageID=303

1. you are not part of the WHO, you are listed as an outside collaborating center in a particular project. If that is important, there will be published material discussing it. 2. The references to the Institute must be published' by a responsible source, not just the web page of a company using your product. Responsible sources for the purpose are published business or technical magazines or scientific or technical journals, or major newspapers. They can be online, but they must be independent and not derived from your own press releases. Please look for something usable. Unless it is really definitive, some people here will probably argue you need two of them, so I suggest you look for that. Once I see them, I will try to rewrite the article so it is not primarily promotional. Please do not send me scattered mentions of web pages. DGG (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that you need it...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Every time I post a note on RSN, it is DGG who gives the most informative, thoughtful, helpful and context-providing comments. I believe that this is because he is actually a robot, the perfect machine of editing and reliable-source-noticeboarding, built by genius aliens to help make the world a better place by helping wikipedia not suck. But I have no citation, so please forgive my original research and accept this barnstar in spite of my obvious insanity. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

List of digital library projects

This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [4] Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how much it is going to help. I am not even sure that this should not be an exception to not being to some extent a web directory. DGG (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Rescued

I have added a "rescued" tag to show where in AFD debates the rescue effort has begun, previously we have been adding a tag that shows when ARS was notified, but I don't think that is useful since nothing has changed at that point.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahamas–Russia relations See here for an example that contrasts the difference in placement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest modifying it to include major changes by people not in the squadron. We there have no monopoly of the good editors, & it's just as important whoever does it. Additionally, I think it over-advertises the ARS. I urge you to change that template right away or we will be back at TfD.DGG (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

your comments on bilateral AfDs

with regard to your comment, are you seriously suggesting we need 20,000 of these, including the most non notable of non notables like Nauru-Monaco, Tuvalu-Ivory Coast, Bahamas-Liechtenstein? Some of the less notable have been nicely merged. the central test is [[WP:N}}, we don't keep articles for the sake of them, as per WP:NOHARM, you will see in each of these AfDs, people feverishly do google searches to find something that proves notable relations which is what keep voters should do. but plain and simple, if they don't meet WP:N, they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. thanks LibStar (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) - well said

Just saw your comment on 08:51, 29 May 2009 - excellent! Thanks for taking out precious time to deal with this depressing situation, that a number of editors are so keen on purging fiction articles from Wikipedia. I can sure understand and fully respect if they find the fiction articles to be of such minor importance that they opt not read the articles themselves; but why they so persistently insist on deletion, hindering other people in reading the articles, is a mystery. A sincere appreciation of your work. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Noindex

• I hope you don't mind me interrupting your conversation, but there is a technique for preventing draft material in your sandbox from being indexed in future (it won't eliminate any existing index/cache/link). Just add the next line to the top of each sandbox page. The second "caution" line aims to reduce liability if someone finds your draft anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

{{NOINDEX |visible = yes}}

{{caution|This is not a Wikipedia article. It may contain unverified draft material that is unsupported, incomplete, out of date, biased or simply false. Don't use anything on this page for any purpose. }}

yes, this works, but, Pointillist, this was on the main user page, not a subp. Can one use that? there also.?DGG (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is effective on a User: page. As I understand it, the template expands to __NOINDEX__[[category:Wikipedia noindex pages]]{{#ifeq:yes|yes|This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.}} There are already quite a few users who "__NOINDEX__" on their User page, e.g. Plrk added it to User:Plrk on 8 Sept 08 (this diff), and added "misunderstood genius" two edits later. If __NOINDEX__ had been effective on a User: page, Googling for Plrk "misunderstood genius" would fail. So you have to do your drafting in a "sandbox" sub-page.

There's another point I should have mentioned. My sandbox contains the phrase "Clive Labovitch (1932-1994) was an entrepreneuial British publisher" (note the typo). If you search for that string via google, my sandbox won't be found because I've it tagged with {{NOINDEX}}, but the entire page has been scraped by another site and using this very specific search, complete with typo, does return the copy of the page held on the other site. That's not generally a problem (e.g. in my example if you Google for Clive Labovitch there are many pages of results before you hit the screen-scraped sandbox page) but you should be aware of it. - Pointillist (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can unfortunately do nothing practical about this. We do not control the way other sites work, nor do we control Google. This is one of the reasons for the immediate deletion of certain material. It doesn't prevent this,but it does minimize the effect. DGG (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

my comment is at the Wikiproject. DGG (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks you. I have refraised my response, putting this rather black and white, in an attempt to get to the bottum of things. I hope you can take an other look... Thank you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy DGG's Day!

User:DGG has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as DGG's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear DGG! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mazel tov! Bearian (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I chime in? Gefeliciteerd! Drmies (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Much deserved! --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats DCG... Keep up the good work :) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy your day !!!! Pohick2 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to draw your attention...

... to WP:SJ, a rather old essay of mine that I decided was ready to move to mainspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP space, you mean. I suggest you add some references to the discussions at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals the relevant parts of WP:RS, & the great many discussions at WT:RS and the RS and FRINGE noticeboards. . I assume you've seen the key problem areas at pseudoscience, controversies over psychiatric & psychiatric medicines, and ethnic controversies. Do you intend this as a revision of guidelines, or an explanation of them? I'll take a further look in a day or two. DGG (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, WP space.

With contributions only from me and Drmies, it's not ready to be a revision of guidelines. All it can be at this stage is a counterpoint.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library

Hi David, you can check your email for some recent developments on this. Thanks!--Pharos (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for saving the article about Christopher Martenson from deletion! --Лъчезар (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Too long, but you read it anyway

Thank you for your very courteous comment of support at WP:RFC/PAID#Statement by TheGrappler. It's extremely reassuring to find that somebody actually spent the time to read through the "tldr" section, cogitated upon it, and found it worthy of comment (and indeed praise, though for the time I invested in writing it, I would have been pleased even to receive a criticism!). Rather like you, I'm a reasonable person with a studiously considered (but hopefully open-minded) approach to Wikipedia; unfortunately I'm not so good at expressing that approach concisely! I've long admired your tactful and intelligent contributions, so your words were especially appreciated. Regards, TheGrappler (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Journals

Hi David, I'm wondering if there are particular notability criteria that apply to journals, and think you might know the answer, (or at least have a view). I'm concerned about a brewing edit-squabble at Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.  pablo_hablo. 19:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rescue

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For tirelessly rescuing articles from deletion discussions. Also, for giving me a new outlook on how to view inclusions/deletions. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I want to thank you. In the past week, several people had an opportunity to show the true content of their character. Your conduct was an inspiration. When several others were loosing their heads, you conducted yourself with the highest standard of integrity and dignity.Dave (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. I'm well aware that among the chaos were some legitimate issues. Rest assured I will do my best to fix them.

Arguing against redirects?

Any idea why all the sudden several editors are taking the unusual stance of insisting fictional characters can't even get redirects? I mean, I am sure it is probably coincidence, but it is rather annoying having to waste my time arguing for redirects. Surely there is strong consensus that these type of redirects are complete appropriate and they cost almost nothing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think I do know why:

1. They are afraid the articles will be re-created using the existing information
2. They are even afraid that if the article is deleted (to remove the history) and then the redirect created, that something like that will be restored anyway.
3. They no longer even ask for merges, because with a merge it is not permitted to remove the history: there is no such thing as merge, delete history , & redirect, because it violates the terms of the license
4. In a few instances, they may simply want to remove as much information about fiction as possible. I checked the 18th c Éncyclopedie yesterday on this very point, and their article about novels simply mentions the names of a dozen French authors and a few works, without talking about any of them elsewhere. That's the sort of encyclopedia some people want.

Now, I myself would be extremely happy if some genres of fiction had never been devised in the first place, but, astoundingly, in many cases the people wanting to remove material are fans of the series or the work. They apparently feel that they are wasting time with things that aren't worth talking about in general company. DGG (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I just made a question along these lines at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavilan ElessedilDGG (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Points 1 and 2 are good ones. It is unfair (and a waste of time, ThaddeusB) to rely on people checking their watchlists to find reversions of redirects, which occur all too regularly. There should be a mechanism to prevent this without a new consensus.

Otherwise I give a lengthy explanation of my rational in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lokar which I would like your opinion on, either there or (preferably) here. I like to think that if I am in the wrong, I, like DGG, can see my position evolve. Abductive (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying on Lokar, but I still thing a "redirect" through disambiguation is better than nothing. In any case, Lokar is the exception - normally these character names only have one possible target. In general, a redirect is better than deletion for several reasons:

• Obviously someone was looking for the material or the page would have never been created
• Pointing new editors directly to a place where the content exists encourages them to edit there and/or spend their time on something else rather than recreating material that exists somewhere
  • Yes, redirecting makes it easier for experienced editors to undo the redirect, but experienced editors are far less likely to do so against consensus than a new editor is to recreate against consensus
  • Additionally, have one's first page deleted is probably the #1 way to scare someone off. Better that they not create the worthless page rather than be crushed when it is immediately deleted/nominated for deletion.
• Adding a page to your watch list costs essentially nothing in terms of time or effort. Additionally, if you wanted to insure the page wasn't recreated the blank page after deletion you'd have to watch list the non-existent page or otherwise keep an eye on it.
  • I have merged and/or redirected more than 100 articles in the last couple months and only 2 or 3 were undone by anyone (and none went through AfD prior to my redirect). If people aren't undoing my BOLD redirect, I really don't think people undoing consensus redirects is a serious problem.
• If a particular redirect is becoming a problem, it can always be protected just like any other page
• Redirects cancan't be hit by "Random article" so there is no risk of someone being pointed to one by accident.

• • • That generally makes sense. Three things; I do find that monitoring my watchlist takes time, a few minutes each time, and over many times it adds up. A reversion rate of 1 or 2 percent per month is 12 to 24 percent per year. And, are you sure that redirects are found by Random article? Abductive (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Of course monitoring a watch list takes time, but (at least for me) almost none of that time comes from changes to slow moving articles (or redirects). I have ~1000 articles on my list and probably 90% of the changes come from noticeboards and swine flu articles, as all the rest of my list is slow moving articles - in many cases I am probably the only active editor watching.

My results are perhaps not typical but take at Patrick Star. Even this very prominent redirect has only been undone less than once a month on average. If the page was repeatedly deleted (and not protected) rather redirected, I can quite confidently say it would be recreated more than once a month.

Finally, I meant "can't" that was an unfortunate typo. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Now is the end of the world if some fictional character doesn't have a redirect? Of course not, but neither should it bother you or anyone else that a redirect exists. It is just sitting there doing no one any harm and if it is helpful to a few people a year, then that is enough to keep it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What do would you guys think if a new popular work of fiction along the lines of Twilight came out, and a user created all the redirects prophylactically? Abductive (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally would be fine with that as long as the characters are mentioned by name in the target article. The redirect could always be overwritten if needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct. I think this sort of attitude is a real shame. While I personally care very little about fiction, I do think that for a large percentage of our readers fictional topics are of great interest. It would be a great disservice to remove fictional topics altogether and would surely be a net negative for Wikipedia. I know you are a strong advocate for merging fictional topics in the "characters of"/"places of"/etc type article and I am on the same page entirely. If the information can be covered in one article there is no need for 5, 10, or even 20 stubs with little more than a basic character description. At the same time, there is no reason to delete information that is of interest to our readers just because it doesn't need its own article.

I think the majority (or at least plurality) of editors agree that merging is usually best, but there are far too many (on both sides) that simply refuse to compromise and I don't really understand why. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

and of course in our system such people can prevent consensus indefinitely. The basic problem which affects every topic lies in our not having a mechanism to get reasonably consistent and stable decisions on content. (There are techniques though for handling very large watchlists, by looking for related changes. What is lacking is some way of filtering so only changes above a certain size are listed. ) But I see many changes in the other direction also--stable agreements to keep content, destroyed by someone going in and changing everything to redirects, or removing large amounts of content from a combination article. The main reason I still support keeping many articles intact even if perhaps better combined is to discourage that. We each think the other side is doing the worse, and it doesn't matter, because both are wrong. A first step would be a rule that BRD cannot be used for redirects and merges--that non-obvious ones MUST be discussed first, with full notice, and consensus. I suppose in equity that should apply to splits also.

Thaddus, the reason why people reject compromise is very simple. Rather than get a situation that consistently gives a result they can accept but do not really like, they prefer a situation where they will get what they want some of the time, even if they will lose others. They prefer chaos to a decision that does not satisfy them. I've heard people say as much in AfD in other topics entirely--their reason for deciding case by case instead of precedent , is that they can at least keep a certain percentage of the articles like X in--or out--even if its a random selection. This general way of thinking is characteristic of young children before they learn how to interact in groups in kindergarten. There's a large number of editors here who never learned. DGG (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be curious as to what kind of articles tend to suffer was this later deletion of merged material. I personally do a lot of merges, but they are mostly all from 6+ day old PRODs where article being merged is either pretty unlikely to be notable or has very little content (2 sentences or less). I figure it is better to PRESERVE what I can than just let it disappear. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm not like that. Abductive (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check your current argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavilan Elessedil, [5] DGG (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody looks at the article, and there are only 42 Google hits, and the search bar and the user's brain will take tham to the article on the novel, I would still prefer outright deletion. What if somebody created an article on a village that the characters visited, but it was not important to the plot or an encyclopedic discussion of the work? How about a stew with a unique name that the characters ate once in the novel? Should Wikipedia have an article, disambig or redirect on every named thing in every fictional work? Abductive (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very hard to define the concept of "important" to the plot. In literature worth the attention, every place named there, even in passing, is included and discussed in works on the subject. There is always a reason for authors writing what they wrote; in good literature it is worth tracing the reasons--it adds depth to the story--the reader, or at least the careful reader, is much intended to make the associations. There has for example, been very extensive work done with Austen's names for people, places, and houses; similarly with Faulkner, or Joyce, or Hardy. Nothing is too trivial for a good writer. I remind you of the extraordinary care that Tolkien gave to this--he constructed a complete legendary history behind ever single name, and discussed it either in the works themselves, or his notebooks. Or the considerable less complicated but still meaningful names in Rowling.

As a librarian, I have learned to assume nothing about users' brains in searching; if they used them the entire profession would be much less necessary. The goal is to set it up so the users will find directly exactly what they no matter how stupidly they go about it. DGG (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but point out that the metric from importance is mention in secondary sources. I've read Tolkien, Rawlings and Brooks, and recall thinking that Brooks was a pale imitation. The paucity of secondary sources on him and his works suggests that his treatment on Wikipedia needs to be scaled back; it seems especially unfair given that minor characters in the Harry Potter series are playing by the rules on their page. Abductive (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Optional request for opinion

After dipping my toe in again, I noticed some unfortunate things about what seems to be casual application of the rescue tag, and on clicking through today's AfD discussions I see a pattern which I don't understand: This, this, this, this, and this page subject each appear to be created as autobiographical or self-promotional, and of the group I'd only keep the library as notable. Does the AfD process commonly ignore self-promotion as a factor in keep or delete closes? In only one case of the five was the self-promotional aspect mentioned in the nom. How should this weigh in the closing admin's decision? BusterD (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

nothing common in the article history, and 4 promotional articles in one day is under the usual quota--there are many thousands of equally bad ones here. (That's why I regret the effort in fighting over whether to merge character articles and similar obvious things--there is real work that needs doing). The library page is a copyvio,by the way--pages that read like that usually are. They will all 4 probably go, unless the motorcycle art is actually notable. The problem is the use of the rescue tag by different editors as a matter of course when the articles come up for deletion. It should not really be used for lost causes, but it's hard to tell what's a lost cause until we look for references--some amazing rescues have been pulled off, typically where a very bad article is written about something where there are actually references for notability--sometimes excellent references for major notability. Ideally, each article on AfD should get attention, and receive a careful look for the possibility of doing something with it. Ideally every new article should get a careful look for the very likely need of improving it and making a strong article out of it. In fact, all the old articles too should individually get the kind of concentrated attention a potential FA gets, to update and strengthen it. We are approaching 3 million articles. Another 100,000 active careful skilled editors are what we most need. If they each revised one a week, we could reedit the encyclopedia properly in 7 months. Or 5,000 people as active as the best people here, who could devote considerable time to it and do one a day. DGG (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

All this gives me more respect for those of you admins who take on "drinking from the firehose" directly. I feel I just help with splatters. There's only so much one can see without doing RC patrol a bunch. Thanks again for offering your view. I may come back around to this again. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

we in turn rely on you and all the other sharp-eyed editor to spot these problems. Do not be reluctant to follow up. Never hesitate about letting someone know if you have doubts about something. DGG (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're not already reading this, I'd appreciate eyes (but please hold your comments). I've been reading some of the previous discussions on this subject, and sampling actual tagged processes, and it's not pretty. I'm going to perform a more formal examination as soon as I figure exactly how I'm going to set it up. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Members of the project things in different ways--I'm a member myself. What would be an interesting analysis is the % of time the tagging got the article kept by consensus. If it is very low, taggers are not being selective, or not improving it sufficiently, or there is a prejudice against them. If it is very high, then either they are very successful, or there is a prejudice for articles they work on. I expect something in the range of 30% to 70%, which I think is an acceptable range. What I think the ideal range should be is 60%-80%. Let's see how the evidence matches my guess. DGG (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to suggest a sample size? BusterD (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Turns out to be easy, using Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles subpage, which I should have known about but had not recalled, in June out of 416 articles, 279 were saved in some form or other, and 137 were not saved. This is 67%. More than I thought, but at about the minimum level I would consider acceptable. Next question: also can be done by counting, how does this compare with the ones not tagged, or the % before the ARS started? One would expect a higher % of the total afd's articles saved than those not tagged, or there would be no need for the tagging--though there will be articles so obviously a keep that there's no need to tag them. I hope there would be a higher % saved now than there was before the ARS started--but that's hard to differentiate from changing views towards deletion. Harder questions: how many should have been saved, but were closed wrong, how many should not have been kept, but were closed wrong. Obviously everyone will disagree here. However, all these numbers as not as meaningful as they look, because many of the saved were saved by a merge or a redirect: I do not consider a redirect with loss of all content a save, though it is technically. Key question? of the ones not saved, how many should not have been nominated? maybe 10 or 15; if 15 out of 416 were tagged in error, or at least wildly overenthusiastically, that's 3.6% of the total tagged. No wikiprocess really operates with errors much less than 5%. They're doing fine, though more articles are being lost than should have been. Evidence of a few really foolish ARS taggings are the sort of anecdotal evidence that should not say anything about the general process. The main reason I think they should be tagging more carefully that if they did, they might save some more articles overall by concentrating on them. I found at least 10 in there that should be appealed or reintroduced after improvements. DGG (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. I know you had some minor concerns about my AfD work, so could you review my recent closures and let me know if I've addressed the issues you noticed? Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

Hi, the discussion on the talk page of this article is getting unpleasant. Some useful info on the journal was actually added to a section from another article and it is now proposed to merge this article there. I think that the current article, plus the info in American Scientific Affiliation#Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation would make for a rather nice journal article. I do however see a problem in showing the notability of this journal, as all sources currently (especially those in the ASA article) are from the journal itself or rather weak otherwise. All we have at this point is the library coverage data that you provided. Your input will be appreciated. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

commented there--it's the indexing that does it. But I would not think it a major error if it gets merged. DGG (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

your comments

your comments on my nominated AfDs rarely provide examples of actual sources establishing notability yet you continue to deride me for making incorrect nominations. that is not assuming good faith. are you going to say my searches were also faulty for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungary – New Zealand relations,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek-Malaysian relations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congolese–Turkish relations and the "closely located" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgaria–Malta relations? your continuing attitude towards an experienced editor like me is noted for future reference. PS you should archive, even when I pressed the end key, my broadband connection still takes a while to load up your talk page. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The onus of a deletion in on the person who wants to delete the article. By the time I comment, other people have generally already added enough material. I appreciate you are trying to fulfill WP:BEFORE, but you are not using common sense in doing it. G and GN are very useful when they succeed, but meaningless when they fail. I think you sometimes do very good work building up these bilateral relations articles, but you don't look far enough. I don't expect you to agree with my view that almost all such relations are notable, but you are persistently ignoring the historical aspects even when they;'re as obvious as Turkey-Malta. In those few cases where there's really never going to be enough for an article and there's no reason why there might be, I have agreed with your nominations & I've not said keep, as for those 3. I don't want to say delete unless I personally check, but it did seem very unlikely in those cases). I have no grudge against you, so I do not see why you should have one against me. Coming here & saying right out that you have one seems unusual, but i won't hold it against you. DGG (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, I must say at times I'm unsure of the intent of your comments. google news is usually the primarily means of getting a feel of third party coverage. google search just yields too much trivial stuff. can you suggest any other ways to verify significant third party coverage to meet WP:GNG? whilst I don't agree with your view on the notability of these, !voting keep for the sake of it and not providing actual evidence of third party non trivial coverage is not very weighty in my opinion. whilst I often don't agree with Richard Norton, at least he makes a genuine effort to demonstrate some third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased to agree than RAN is working on these harder than I am. It's not actually my main interest, since I can only work on a few articles a day, I pick articles to try to source where I have some special technique, or access, or background to find sources. I never say a bald keep. I always give a reason. I try to have it based on policy. If people don't agree with my reason, they won;t vote in accordance with it. If I were personally deciding as a one-person committee what to keep and delete, and was doing it without looking for sources, you'd have a valid complaint. But this is a cooperative effort, and if RAN is there, I know I can depend on him. DGG (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

well your point about me being careless is not appreciated, AfDs are for discussion, if consensus shows something is notable, I accept that. if nominations are "faulty" then it will come out in consensus. what I think is more careless is the 1000s of bilateral articles that were created as stubs (not just the banned user) and no effort being made to improve them...so they are left as stubs for 1 or 2 years. rather lazy in my opinion. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need some way of discussing what should be done with less-than-satisfactory articles in contexts other than threatening deletion. But AfDs are for when deletion is proposed as the solution, and if nomination s are faulty it wastes everyone's time and energy. I agree with you also that many people who write articles are lazy (or even ignorant) about references, but the secondary responsibility for trying to remedy that is everyone's.DGG (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AfDs are a proposed solution when I nominate because I fail to find adequate sources, I can tell you in most instances I don't nominate bilateral articles because there is evidence of coverage. In some instances, I put a {{notability}} tag on some bilateral articles, in the cases I think are borderline, yet I have never seen any editor attempt to improve an article after adding this tag. you can draw 2 conclusions from this, people can't be bothered improving it or it needs to go to AfD. the problem with these bilaterals is that anyone can make an X and Y article and just leave it there and not risk speedy deletion. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Some rewrite Charles Lockwood (author)

Dave, I just thought of rewriting the introductory sentence in Lockwood's bio. Is that more accurate or acceptable? How about the Corporate Sustainability section. I hope I can keep that? Please let me know if there's a need for further modification. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

List of actors who have played animated characters

Thank you for pointing out that "Usefulness is a relevant criterion for navigational devices such as lists", I could really use a cite of it, if possible.

The AfD was closed 'no consensus' here, challenged by Powers here, reopened here and closed Delete here. King of Hearts looks to me to be letting him/erself be pushed around by Powers. The argument that the AfD should be reopened to allow an editor to insert a last comment is unworkable and unsound. AfD closed, X requests the right to comment, AfD reopened, X adds a final comment, AfD closed, Y requests... When the second closure is considered, it's also having it both ways. Either one believes that it should have been opened to allow comments from Powers, and it shouldn't have been closed before replies to Powers could be addressed, or one believes as I do that it shouldn't have been re-opened for a user to get the last word in the first place.

My comments on User talk: King of Hearts for more on this. (middle paragraph and last sentence also sent to Michael Q) Anarchangel (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I see it was reopened. I will comment there. DGG (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

Hi. In light of recent events and community concerns about the way in which content is transferred I have proposed a new wikiproject which would attempt to address any of the concerns and done in an environment where a major group of editors work together to transfer articles from other wikipedias in the most effective way possible without BLP or referencing problems. Please offer your thoughts at the proposal and whether or not you support or oppose the idea of a wikiproject dedicated to organizing a more efficient process of getting articles in different languages translated into English. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DSB project

Hi DGG! Thanks so much for everything this past weekend -- I got home intact, if a couple hours delayed from the storms.

Here's my subpage on my DSB project -- the citations are formatted to link to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, so if you check the "what links here" from that article you can see the ones I or others have done already. The redlinks on my page are bios that weren't already written that are in the DSB; the bluelinks are bios that have been written since I started the project. There's also a dump of bios in the print version that Ruud Koot did. I haven't been writing down my progress, but I'm somewhere in the middle of the print "B" volume at the moment, so anything starting later than that would be helpful -- we could start keeping track of how many bios we've covered. Best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pity the picnic never actually happened.

--the links seem to go to the print version only, not the online also. Additionally, at least some show the part in the main vol, not the added parts for those who have them in the supplementary New Dictionary of Scientific Biography I think it might be better to add the online links & complete the ones for the supplement first, before continuing alphabetically, so we know that at least some part is complete. (I recall you said the online version wasn't available to you at the beginning of the project). That the New Dictionary did not include a complete list of scientists with main entries in the entire work is one of the principal defects in that reference work--and one of the defects in our reference work is that the listing in "what links here" is not sorted alphabetically. DGG (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Our online version is through a (subscription) Gale interface, so there aren't easy links to the articles (I get something like this), and even if there were it wouldn't be helpful to nonsubscribers. But what they are providing seems to be an HTML version, but additionally a straight pdf scan of the original print -- so actually providing the print page #s & reference is still helpful no matter what version it came from. The new DSB volumes are just tacked onto the end of the original set, from what I can tell (they start over with the alphabetization) and the "complete dsb" is just a scan of the whole thing. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So-called apamming by learned societies etc

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on this issue. Ultimately, of course, we non-admins just have to do as we are told (whether we agree or not) as it's you guys who have the power to delete us and block us. So I guess there's not much point arguing about it.

It would certainly help though if the "tone" and "approach" were to be a bit less overbearing and autocratic when pointing out "spam" to editors. Of course, I understand the point about the dangers of attracting purely promotional activity but it's often perfectly well intentioned and stems from a desire to provide the fullest information possible. I also find this idea of COI in wikipedia bizarre. If you work for an organization, you are likely to have a fair bit of expertise on how it works and therefore pretty well qualified to edit on it. That's not a COI, surely? PointOfPresence (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, but the problems are not easy to fix.

1. There is an inherent conflict between writing about what you know and not writing about what you are involved in. This does not affect people who write about hobbies--it does not affect me when I work on English history, or about things we're only generally connected with, as when I do the bio of some geologist or chemist. In theory, you are supposed to wait until such an incidentally interested person happens to come along. In practice, we often do more than that. The bio of my graduate advisor was missing. He was clearly qualified as a member of the NAS; as nobody did it, I eventually did & in fact won one of our internal awards for filling the gap. It helps to have an established reputation when one starts. or to go slowly and check with people who are well known here.
   1. But there are problem. for example, I could have written that bio to omit the fact that his best known book is so well-known because it made a prediction about the future of biological science that turned out to be as totally wrong as a prediction can be. If you write about your organization, you might implicitly pretend it accomplishes all of its goals. You might assume all of its publications are equally well-received. You can place excessive links for our customary practice, and be annoyed when they are removed. You might exaggerate the importance of some of its features or events.
2. It's inevitable that any human organizations--especially a very large one--even that tries to be egalitarian-- develops at least informal power structures. If you want a guide to our ethos, I recommend the free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print).
3. Our impoliteness to beginners is a well-known disgrace--see WP:BITE for an essay on this. Many admins try to ameliorate this, but the prevailing tone is that of a convention of 19-year old science fiction fans, with some irascible elders of the previous two generations mixed in. We even have a rule that says, in effect, if you want to change something, don't be reluctant to start a fight about it, WP:BOLD
4. This is a unique medium. There are no real precedents for something this size without top down control that actually produces a widely useful product. Even to people who have been here many years, things can seem peculiar, and often are. The only practical thing to do is to learn to work the way it works, and gradually try to affect things as you learn how . DGG (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack

Just a reminder: On Wikipedia talk:Coatrack, you wrote "to be continued" in February. — Sebastian 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

too many things keep happening here for one human being--or at least for me. I will try to get back to it. DGG (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Boondocks characters

Hi.Maybe you are interested in the discussion there. An editor thinks I have to bring the articles to AfD, I am trying to reach a solution on the talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soap Opera "supercouples" : Luke and Laura?

DGG, you always seem to be fair in these types of discussions and have a good grasp on Wikipedia policies. With these nominations, linked to above, I am more concerned about the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article (one I and Rocksey plan to fix up). The article/topic is clearly notable, but I feel that this could get overlooked due its current messy state and the fact that it is lumped into a debate with other messy soap opera couple articles, most of which should be deleted. Should I trust in the system in this case, or what? Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. The nominator has withdrawn Luke and Laura from the debate upon my earlier request. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The others need to be considered individually also. Group nomination of this sort always leads to lack of consideration for possible individual merit. Personally, I would eliminate the provision except in exceptional instances, such as related cases dealing with the same non-notable topic made by the same group or at the same time. I despair of compromise on fiction--the extremists have taken over, and the necessary assumption of good will and desire to reach an acceptable conclusion is no longer present in this area. I am reluctant to let those who wish to minimize the coverage of human imaginative creations drive me out of the area. But their lack of understanding and the obnoxiousness of their tactics is so great I find it difficult to maintain equilibrium in dealing with them. DGG (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I've read your comments and have disregarded them. DJ 17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

considering that i proposed to you that you could better accomplish your end of getting the inappropriate ones deleted or merged by re-nominating them individually, I can only that you for the perfect demonstration of what i say above about the lack of good will in this area. DGG (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

There is a lot of stuff at the bottom of Wikipedia:CiterSquad#Volunteers, which seems to me should be in on the talk page, would you take a look and let me know if I am mistaken in my apprasial, if it should be moved, please do so. If I move it, there would be conflicts. Thanks Jeepday (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Some of us want any newcomers to this non-citing project to know that there is significant dissent. (It's not a project to add cites; it's a project to add "unreferenced" tags.) Some of my objection departs if the Orwellian name goes away. DGG, apologies for butting in on your talk page. Antandrus (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith again

• Things seem to be getting out of hand there, with two users redirecting the article against a clear majority of opposed votes on the talk page. The bullying behavior goes as far as putting a 3RR warning on my talk page, although I reverted just 2 times, as much as the person warning me. Your input might be helpful. --Crusio (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Schools notability

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Request_for_comments:_Notability_of_high_schools. TerriersFan (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Name dropped in an off-wiki article

DGG here is a little sun to help brighten your day. LA @ 05:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ribbon 1 • Ribbon 2

Dear DGG...I was reading Where oh where has my trivia section gone? which lead me to "Should Wikipedia include trivia?" which lead me to "The Charms of Wikipedia" where Nicholson Baker dropped your user name in the final section of that article. I just thought you might like to know. Have a nice day! LA @ 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am much less patient now. Some of the above messages about failed compromises at fiction and the challenged compromise high schools may give some idea of why. DGG (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems the high schools compromise still holds. DGG (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with just your talk page as far as I can tell. I can't access it directly from clicking on my user contributions page nor from your user page. I get a weird message "Override this function." Do you know what that means? LA @ 06:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And now it seems to have gone away, but it could be back. LA If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 06:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's happening erratically all over the site; happened to me also.. Saw it mentioned at AN/I. Bug reported earlier today [6] Cause presently unknown, except apparently related to a software update.DGG (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Great userpage

		The Excellent User Page Award
		I just want to say that I greatly enjoyed reading your userpage - probably because so much of it is both true and in need of saying. Thanks, Ben Aveling 08:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientist bios

Over the past several years, I have seen you remark several times that WP lacks good coverage of scientist bios. I had not given this subject any special thoughts, until Firefly posted a bio of myself. FF complimented me on my modesty in taking that bio to AfD, but that is not really correct: I am as vain as any researcher ;-) Having created several bios for others, I feel a bit hypocritical in proposing my own one for AfD. However, I edit WP under my own name and as WP life goes, that means that you're free game whenever there is a conflict on some other article. (It is obvious to me that had I been editing under a pseudonym, FF would not have created this bio and Hrafn wouldn't have slammed it). Any scientist can do without a WP bio slammed with notability tags and unflattering angry discussion on its talk page (the tags can be removed, but not the talk-page discussion). Anyway, I am digressing. One problem that I see with scientist bios is WPs (justifiedly) frowning on COI editing. We have all seen way too many fluff pieces written by their subjects. However, COI editing can work out well and I think that the article on Genes, Brain and Behavior, edited by myself (with a clear COI) but checked by other editors (yourself and Headbomb), is a good example of this. My idea is that it could perhaps be encouraged for scientists to write an autobio article in their userspace, which could then be checked by appropriate other editors who might (after correcting any POV) eventually decide to move it into article space. Checking an article would be much less work than writing it from scratch (even if done seriously meaning checking sources and searching for possible unfavorable material that has been omitted) and this way we could perhaps get an increase in this type of articles. In addition, if instructed properly, these autobios would most probably include more details on the research done by these individuals than nowadays mostly is the case, making not only for more but also for better bios. An additional advantage would be that the vetting before it is moved into article space would greatly reduce the probability of an article being slammed with tags and would spare good faith but non-notable persons the humiliating experience of having their bio go through AfD (wouldn't help with the vanity bios, but I don't mind the feelings of those persons too much...). What do you think of this idea, is it realistic? --Crusio (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

About half the bios of this sort are done by people with some degree of COI, & I agree this does not disqualify. What is needed is guidance. When scientists write their own bios they tend to fall into one of two errors: they give a minimal single paragraph as in a faculty list, or the give a full multi-page CV. You'd think people would know to look for a similar article and do likewise, but it would help to have standard templates--preferably as fill in the box types. I'd like to do it for many other types of articles also.

I'm not sure prevetting would help, certainly not as a requirement. I see an increasing people in all fields doing them by choice. We could perhaps have a way of suggesting it as a possibility--but I am concerned that it would just add complexity--the system is intimidating enough. You are right, thought, that it would avoid the embarrassment of having to tell someone they're not notable enough. Perhaps what we need there is some other word than notable and notability. Perhaps we need a simple arbitrary inclusion rule anyone can understand. (What we really need is tact and discretion, but let's be practical.) But we can conceal talk p. discussions, by archiving, or even as "courtesy deletions". At the very least, we can be sure to make them NOFOLLOW. Ideally, we should do everyone likely to be notable by bot in advance as a stub--I think I could write a conceptual algorithm to use on a faculty list, or a list of holders of a chair. DGG (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability for academic journals

Actually, I could do with your input, I've just realised. Is there any agreement on thresholds of notability for academic journals? There's a discussion happening at Modern Theology about whether or not it is notable. I suspect so, and the other user suspects not, but I don't think either of us is sure.  :-) Cheers, Ben Aveling 09:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We generally go by number of libraries and coverage in the standard indexes for the subject. In general, a journal by a major publisher is notable. And there is an project to make an article in Wikipedia for every journal cited here. DGG (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

incidentally, my comment from a current discussion elsewhere in Wikipedia, in response to a claim that WoS is the standard for journal significance:

I completely disagree with this as a general statement, and I doubt many information scientists or research librarians or scholars in the humanities would agree either. WoS includes only a very select list of current journals in the humanities, and similarly Scopus--exactly because of the many possible journals--so many not because they are insignificant but because they are most of them very small in contrast to science journals. Even in the social sciences coverage varies, and education gets very minor coverage in WoS, and only a little better in Scopus. Indeed, that's true even the the sciences: it is perfectly true that in molecular biology and physics a journal not in ISI is unlikely to be important, this is not the least true in descriptive biology. As a recent paper, by a well known information scientist, Howard White et al, in Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, the best journal in my subject, "Libcitation: A measure for comparative assessment of book publications in the humanities and social sciences" doi 10.1002/asi.21045 (v. 60, no.6,pp.1083-1096, 2009) says in its introduction

Thomson's Arts and Humanities Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index fail to cover many journals in book-oriented fields. Particularly likely not to be covered , because of economic constraints on Thomson or any similar publisher, are journals from the smaller anglophone countries of in languages other than English. ...[and ]Scopus is of no help to people in the humanities.

The purpose of the authors is to propose counting the no. of books in libraries as an alternative measure--something I have long advocated here and for which am glad to have such authoritative support. I'll be discussing the article further, as I think it's of general relevance to how we evaluate in these fields.DGG (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Amos Daragon

Why did you suggest to merge to Bryan Perro? Both the book series and the author seem notable enough to me from the French-language media coverage for separate articles. Fences&Windows 15:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am being very cautious with articles submitted by that publisher. DGG (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedies

If you think my DB tagging of new articles that do not seem (to me) comply with guidelines is not helpful all you have to do is politely ask me to stop. I'm trying to be helpful but I'm happy to stop if I am not successful in this regard. Threatening to "enforce" a Twinkle removal is a bit excessive, I'm not sure why you're telling me that since I already know it can be disabled or I can be blocked. I'll just stop the tagging altogether. Cheers, <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want you to stop tagging--you have been catching many articles that we need to delete--I've deleted some myself after you tagged them, and checked some others for recreation and tagged or deleted them again if they weren't improved. What I asked is that you do it slowly and carefully. I didn't ask you to stop using TW either--it can make things much easier to send the right notices. I just asked you to be more careful. (It's possible to go too fast even manually), We need more good patrolling and it's therefore important for everyone to tell each other about mistakes. People tell me about mine. They even let me know from time to time if I'm going too fast, or seem to be getting sleepy. This is a co-operative project & we need each other. DGG (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Also, I added 2 more refs to Civil Auto Liability, they're in Romanian but translations to English can be viewed via Google. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTIFY

I was sure that this existed, but as you can see, it doesn't. I had understood the particular warnings on the various noticeboards (AN, ANI, WQA, SPA, etc.) that you should notify an editor if you are reporting their conduct there to be manifestations of a deeper policy, or at least community norm, of notification. Viz. that as a matter of wikiquette if nothing else, if you are trying to get someone into hot water, you should notify that person so that they have basic due process (notice and opportunity to be heard). Thus, whether you are asking for sanctions against someone at ANI or on an admin's talk page, or anywhere else, you should let that person know.

I therefore have three questions. (1) Is my understanding correct, in your view, that there is a broad community norm of notification? (2) Is this reflected in any existing policy? (3) If the answer to 1 is yes and to 2 is no, how do I go about proposing such a policy? Do I just create WP:NOTIFY and slap the "proposed" tag on it?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

sorry, not seen among everything else. Yes, there is a broad community norm. On some of the noticeboards there is a specific statement: WP:ANI say at the top "As a courtesy, you must inform other users if they are the subject of a discussion (you may use Hello, DGG. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so)." ANB has a similar statement. as do the others you mention. (The content-oriented board do not, though they should require one on the article talk p. if a specific article is being discussed, which is usually the case.) The only conduct-oriented ones I watch I ANB and AN/I, and it is almost universal that if an editor is being discussed, someone checks to make sure they are notified, and if not, notifies them--and mentions in the discussion that they have done so. There is reluctance to set barriers in the way of someone making a complaint, so tho they should be more formally required, we wouldn't turn someone down if they didn't, just request that they do. As for user talk pages, that gets harder to insist on. Many people simply watchlist likely pages DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Warrior4321's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for My Tomato Pie

An editor has asked for a deletion review of My Tomato Pie. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hornbook project

I am not sure if this is encyclopedic, but I am willing to try it out. Bearian (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that anyone asked my opinion, but this seems to me more likely to fall under the mission of Wikiversity. Bongomatic 13:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mmwilgus (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

John Fisher school

saw your post and I agree. User marlon was warned about edit warring but continues. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_John_Fisher_School&action=history He says to discuss but he would rather revert every other editor & call it vandalism than discus anything. thank you User:Husounde —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

also I just warned him for edit warring and he called it vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marlon232&diff=307742704&oldid=307741003 Husounde (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He's reverted 11 times this summer if that helps. I think more before that. Husounde (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work Husounde!Marlon232 (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RfA !vote (Headbomb)

Your vote is killing me right now. I've answered you and I really think you made too hasty a call on this. Your two main objections (or at least what I think are your main objections) were the deletion of Proc Natl Acad Sci U S a and the AfDing of Vacuum genesis. I'm pretty sure I've addressed those sufficiently. The former serves no purpose whatsoever, as the search engine isn't capital sensitive (try both "go" and "search"), and the later was not some kind of reckless AfDing like you suggested it was. I consulted with the Astronomy project first to confirm that my concerns had a certain basis, and one of the resident editor there thought that it was non-notable too and should be sent to AfD. Only after that did I send it to AfD.

If there's anything else I would need to justify or explain to convince you to move from oppose to neutral/support, please let me know. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

afd procedure

Hi, I'm wondering if it is allowed/discouraged, for users to remove all incoming links to an article that is at AfD, if the outcome is uncertain? I thought I'd seen that action mentioned in the guidelines, but can't find it.

Specifically, a user is removing (eg) all links leading to -logy, which he nominated at afd. Is that acceptable? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

the basic guideline is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD, but it does not specifically address what is likely to be contentious:

the question is whether or not it improves the article. Some people interpret that, as improving its chances of passing AfD, which is usually but not always the same thing. But I have seen people change an article at AfD to make it worse, in order to get it deleted. Most of the times, this is done just before nomination, where it's less visible to the high proportion of commentators who don't check the history. (I was wondering about WP:BEANS here, but the people who do the dirty tricks tend to be regulars who already know about them.). As a example of doing this well, if the article contains a linkfarm, and this is one of the reasons for deletion, it's good to remove it, but if the links add to the value of the article, then it is not. If the article has borderline references, it's good to remove them and substitute better ones; but to remove borderline ones and leave it unreferenced is not helpful. When it's done just before deletion I consider it evidence of bad faith, just as much so as stubbifying an article and then saying it covers the subject inadequately.

Where something one is on the scale, it is something I'd rather comment on at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, dirty tricks like Canvasing? Hey, how bad is this guy being in the review? I'm not going to ask you to vote against it, but did you know about it?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew about it. I'm a little behind in checking AfDs, and hadnt gotten to it. I try to pick out the ones where I have something to say, and if I miss something likely to be interesting to me, I like to be told. About half the time, what I say is not what the person asking me may hope for. People looking for unqualified support from someone know enough not to ask for it here. You nominated another prefix or suffix or two, where I did not bother to comment because the deletion is correct, and will happen just as well without me. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to canvass. I was asking an experienced admin whether preemptively delinking an article was actually prohibited somewhere, or if it was just really poor etiquette. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that the afd has been closed as keep, who is responsible for reinstating any of the useful links that were preemptively removed? (I won't have time to get to it till at least next week). (You can copy/move this thread to Talk:-logy or elsewhere, if that'd be more appropriate). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All the links referred to foreign words and were linked inappropriately and are now linked appropriately. Nobody looking at those links would have had much idea where they led; I removed no visible links to -logy. If you want to go through and add links to -logy, go right ahead. So far as I can tell, none of the words I changed were derived from -logy, they were all derived directly from the greek or latin. The suffix -logy seems to be essentially a backronym. Or, if you're declaring an edit war, and intend to go through and simply undo all my edits, then I'd appreciate DGG giving you a suspension now, which should save time.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not edit warring to revert your removal of links if a good faith user disagrees with your action in removing them. The edit war starts when you revert back without discussing and if you do that we will know where the blame for the edit war lays won't we.... You seem to take a very combative approach to discussing deletion. You know, you catch more flies with honey and your behaviour on the -logy AFD was certainly unhelpfuly muddying the discussion that I closed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It will surprise no one that I agree with Spartaz about this. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tonxxx (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Regards, Anthony |^talk]] at 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

I just wanted to compliment you on your tact. Good form! — Ched :  ?  02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, and glad it is already resolved. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isola (fictional island)

Hi DGG. I sent this for AfD. This is just a fictional island named in some certain video games. I played on of these games and I didn't know the name of the island. Nothing important in google as well. You may want to write your opinion there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

afd is the place, not prod, from which I deprodded it. --almost no deletion of this sort is incontestable. As you know, I do not think the GNG ought to apply to this sort of article DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Team conflict

User:Colonel Warden already deprodded it before you prodded it. So have a WP:TROUT. It'll probably die horribly at AfD, but it'll be a valiant fight. Fences&Windows 00:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Col. & I agree completely about two-thirds of the time and completely opposite the other third. What makes it odd is because I think we both take the same general approach. I generalize from that there's at least a 25 % percent variability between what we any of us individually would consider notable even if we all agreed completely on the guidelines, which makes arguing over individual articles a little pointless. Proposed rule for AfD: keep anything any two experienced Wikipedians will speak for if they promise to maintain it (two not one, to eliminate idiosyncrasy). A lot of decisions will be wrong, but that's true anyway. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned WP:GNG is the best guide, and I interpret it to mean that if you can find several independent, secondary reliable sources directly covering a topic and we can write a decent article based on them, we should have an article on that topic. I never bother looking at all these notability guidelines for people, music, books etc. Of course some topics are bloody stupid, like Michelle Obama's arms, so there are exceptions.

As for "team conflict", I don't think we have another article on the general topic of conflict at work, which would seem to be a notable topic, although we do have Work-life balance, Hostile work environment, Sexual harrassment, and Organisation climate. Seems to me that we need a general article on Work environment and another on Conflict at work. Fences&Windows 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What follows is my own view, not current consensus: I do not accept GNG as a guide except when we have no other rational criterion for notability, or as a first rough screen. IUt works better for some types of articles than others; it very often works with people, or businesses. It almost always fails with abstract concepts I additionally think that its usefulness is ending, for with the great ongoing increase in coverage of GBooks and GNews -- which were not imagined in their present form when the rule was formulated, it is much too inclusive. Once we have all local newspapers there from a country--which will happen much earlier in the US than the UK, the rule will become much too inclusive. it will easily be possible to find references for almost anyone & anything. (They were in existence before, but they were too hard to find, and only a few dedicated people did the work, & in a very few instances). We are thus increasingly forced to find increasingly narrow definitions of what counts as significant coverage or reliable sources, and adopt special rules, such as ONEEVENT, which take many people and things out of the sphere of the GNG entirely. It is no accident that this have become needed where the Googles are strongest. Has nobody else noticed that ONEEVENT and GNG are in basic principle of how to decide contradictory? One goes by sources, the other by content. I make a prediction: we will not have WP:N in anything like its present form in another 3 years.

We can and should have a great many more general articles than we do. The main problem is that is much harder to write them adequately. We could have an article on the topics you mention, and on dozens of other related topics also.--even on team conflict, both in the meaning of conflict within a small workgroup or among teams. The question here for an existing article is whether it provides a useful basis for anything. This is especially true when it is a matter of repurposing an article intended to be indirectly promotional, as when someone uses an article on a book to write what should be an article on the subject of the book, but from a narrow perspective, or on a particular company's implementation of a business process for the process. When I see these, I'd very much like for us to take the opportunity to rewrite, but this takes what almost all actual Wikipedia people are most reluctant to do, which is actual research using a range of sources. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Concepts can be defined using the GNG too, e.g. One dollar salary is notable because multiple reliable sources cover it in detail. I still feel we need to always refer to what reliable sources say; the tendency for editors to try to define in absolute terms what is notable and what is not is problematic and often distracts from actually looking at the sources.

There's already a bias against local news coverage that I think is sometimes reasonable and sometimes unfair. To make it policy would be tricky. Local newspapers do often have stories about trivial local matters, but how we define local and trivial is problematic. An adaptation to GNG could say that topics must have received some national coverage and in more than one publication, but this would make things that happen in tiny countries more notable than things that happen in large US states!

Of course GNG and ONEEVENT clash; it's pretty clear that ONEEVENT is designed as an exception to avoid having lots of articles about people that focus simply on a single incident. I largely agree with ONEEVENT, but it does mean that we delete articles about people who receive large amounts of national or international news coverage. John Yettaw was kept at AfD, for instance, despite ONEEVENT.

"this takes what almost all actual Wikipedia people are most reluctant to do, which is actual research using a range of sources." Haha, too true! It's so much easier to slap a delete tag on. I've rewritten a few articles from scratch rather than see them deleted, and UncleG did an amazing turnaround with Hell, Arizona, turning a hoax stub into a useful article. Generally there's too few people stepping back and looking at where we need to build the encyclopedia - although some of the WikiProjects do a fine job - and too many treating Wikipedia like a game of who can delete the most articles. I'm not looking at the big picture much either as I'm mostly either WikiSlothing around or firefighting to save notable topics at prod or AfD. Fences&Windows 16:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We disagree about the fundamental basis upon which articles should be included in this or any other encyclopedia. (to avoid misunderstanding, I agree that your view is much closer to the current consensus, as I said earlier) My general view is that one part of what people want in a reference book is consistency: they will accept it if we cover all AAA baseball players, or if we cover none of them, but not if we cover some and not others because of the erraticness of what sources we can find easily among the ones that are published. They'd accept any other rational standard also, such as AAA players who have been on an AAA team for a full season--I take an example of current interest that I don't care about in the slightest. With a reference book, one wants to know ahead of time if it is likely to be useful. I see you understand the problems of interpreting "local" -- there's another one, the NYT/Washington Post are local newspapers for NYC/Washington as well as being national, though the NYC no longer covers minor purely local events. My example of what can happen is that most local newspapers give the lineups and scores of HS football games, with occasional stories about the principal local players. The scores may not be significant coverage, but the features are. "National" is asking much too much anywhere--I once suggested regional coverage as a more appropriate standard, but with the ongoing consolidation of newspapers & rise of internet news sources our standards are becoming less useful altogether. I do not completely rule out publication-based standards--a valid standard for a book or film is whether it had gotten reviews; we could and probably do include all restaurants included in Michelin. ASs for one event, the current exception is "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate" I consider that a very broad exception, not taken account of sufficiently. Obviously any event worth an article would be significant, and therefore every person with a substantial role in a significant event should have an article. if their role can be verified. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

JFS again

As some editors are going on and on about this paragraph that a local newspaper reported some students as saying there was aggression and verbal abuse etc directed at some pupils, and you said you read the article, could you say how you got to read it and if possible put a transcript on the jfs talk page. ThanksSayerslle (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

the burden is on those who want to insert the content, especially with BLP, but I will take a look. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

SOD/CAT

I wondered if you might review the deletion of SOD/CAT. I'm concerned about the speed at which the article was deleted after being relisted for review. I am also concerned that the main catalyst--Dr Vickers--behind the deletion effort has made a large number of edits to a competing technology, Protandim which may indicate a COI. I do not know what the next step to appeal for an undelete would be. I appreciate your insights. RGK (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It was listed for the regular 7 days, and then an additional 8th day--I suspect the only reason it was even kept open was that I had previously declined a speedy deletion on the article; at that point two additional good editors commented to delete, and it was appropriately closed. In all 6 editors, 5 of them excellent editors with considerable experience, said to delete, and only you , who apparently have a commercial interest in the product, said to keep. The admin who evaluated and closed the discussion is also experienced and competent; no adminwould have decided otherwise. Earlier, as reviewing admin when it was nominated for speedy, I declined the speedy deletion , saying " I think this shows at least some minimal importance, so not appropriate for speedy deletion." This does not mean I thought it should be kept; rather, that it said enough to require a community discussion before deleting it, and that is exactly what it has had. I did not participate at the AfD, as I did not think it necessary, but I too would certainly have said to delete. It seems clear from a scan of the references for the article that they are all or almost all general, and that there are no published studies about this particular product, but Superoxide Dismutase in general--except for an uncited Russian one of which a translation is posted on the company's web site. The other purported publications were in unreliable non-peer reviewed sources.

Tim vickers I have long known as a very experienced Wikipedia editor of the highest integrity. He edits articles on many subjects in his area. He, like myself, has a doctorate in the biochemistry/molecular biology. In fact, the reason I do not participate very much in this subject area is because the people there--of which he is perhaps the most active--do it extremely well, & I therefore work on other areas where help is more needed. He and I --and everyone here -- have a strong conviction that the quality of Wikipedia depends (among other things) upon keeping out advertisements for commercial products. Unbiased articles giving information on notable commercial products are another matter, if there are adequate references to show their notability. I advised you how to improve it, but although you fixed up many details nicely, it was not improved in the basic problems--from which I conclude that there was not enough appropriate specific material to support an article. I agree 100% with the deletion. You have the right to ask for restoration at WP:Deletion Review. I would advise against it. Even though Deletion Review is unpredictable, the chance for this one is approximately zero & all you will get there is further explanations of why this material is not suitable content for an encyclopedia--both because it is advertising and because the product is not notable. As for attacking the reliability and objectivity of T.V., I cannot think of anything which would harm you more. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response DGG. I accept your judgement and acknowledge your support for T.V.'s independence. I will not be pursue an appeal of the SOD/CAT article. RGK (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that a form of the article has been moved from Robert Kavanaugh/Sandbox2 back to main space by MuZemike. I don't know why. ^Bongo_matic 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume he did not realize, and I speedy deleted it as a re-creation. I do not see that any of the objections were met. RK, did you mean to re-create the article or abandon it? DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Abandon for now as per above. I'd saved a copy in what I thought was a personal sandbox. Apparently, its not personal, and someone I've no relationship with moved back to SOD/CAT. Thank you for fixing. Over and out. RGK (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The confusion was probably caused because it was in mainspace - Robert Kavanaugh/Sandbox2 - instead of User space - User:Robert Kavanaugh/Sandbox2. I noticed this because I just now userified Robert Kavanaugh/Sandbox1. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the usefulness of keeping it there either, as it is extremely unlikely sources will be found. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I made no attempt to judge its merits. Looks like some chunk of a larger article (perhaps of the deleted one for all I know). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Aggrawal

• Although this AfD seems to be mostly on the scientist, there is also a journal involved (Anil Aggrawal's Internet Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology). Despite the seemingly "vanity" title of the journal, this is a less clear cut case than it might seem at first sight. --Crusio (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Anhel GmbH

restored. Icewedge (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:International Theatre Vienna

Hi DGG. It's absolutely fine with me! If any articles subject to deletion can be salvaged, I would be happy to support the effort. I have restored the page. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Knew you would. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for A.D.A.M., Inc.- see my response on my talk page. ~ mazca ^talk 07:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed ADAM for deletion - a search on Google revealed lots of hits, but mainly the information on websites seems to be based on the company's own press releases. I have left a more detailed reason on Talk:A.D.A.M., Inc.. (By the way, the talkback below is about another article, so please read it!) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As you admit their principal product to be notable, proposing the company for deletion seems a strange choice. did you even try to check the implied references there to Fortune and Forbes? DGG ( talk ) 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the Forbes and Fortune websites, as well as newspaper articles (looking for any mention which did not basically say ADAM said that they have been selected to be on the Fortune list. I could not find any verifiable references. The WP:Notability (organizations and companies) guidelines say that An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - since all the hits I checked used the company's own press releases, then they would not be counted as independent. Other references I found are covered by this (from the same guidelines): Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest

I amy not have been clear: being selected for those lists is notability. One way for things to be notable is for good secondary sources to consider it notable. But no point discussing it further here. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 08:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

as you recognize there, the material will need to be found with other approaches than Google. I consider it less than ideally productive to nominate for deletion articles whose check will require resources you do not have available, but which will very obviously be found in printed sources. What you are essentially doing is forcing others to work on the subjects you challenge them to--and least, forcing them to do so if they care about information in the encyclopedia for material older than 2000. If you do not have a good print library available, you would help the encyclopedia more if you worked on subjects that did not need one. DGG ( talk ) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DRV:Alan Roger Currie

You made a comment at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_12#Alan_Roger_Currie that "two local articles for someone claimed to be of nationwide significance is not significant coverage". Would you still so consider four articles from two widely separated states?

depends what they say. "significant coverage" is not a black|white divide. Most of the things we word as sharp distinctions are actually not. I do not actually like the entire current system of deciding whether to include articles, but that's what I have to work with. the entire article focus is obsolete--we are still archaically trying to look like a print encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

On a different approach, the article author has completely rewritten the article as User talk:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article. Would you consider if this different version would meet our Notability standards? Thanks. --GRuban (talk)

I'll take a look. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

enough improved to relist, as I commented there, but I shall probably say to delete once again. Scattered local coverage does not = national coverage, and talk show appearances = PR. I would strongly suggest you let it take its chances without lobbying this time around. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thanks .... for the first part of that, then. Appreciated. --GRuban (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your objectivity in this issue Chicago Smooth talk 14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding This diff who did you warn and where can that warning be seen? Thanks.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have forgotten to press "save" I will follow up if the warning is still needed tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Allison

Hi DGG, the outcome of the above debate surprised me, due to the RS. As I respect your judgement, I would like to hear your opinion on that matter. thanks Power.corrupts (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I commented at the closer's talk page. It is almost always wrong to cut off an AfD in this manner before a range of people have a chance to contribute. If he does not revert his close, & I doubt he will , the only possible course under our policy is to take it to deletion review, and you should think carefully. BLP policy is essentially OWNed by those who use it as an excuse for overly deletionist interpretations of NOT NEWS. They can sometimes be combatted if it is only NOT NEWS, but when BLP is involved , they usually win, because people stop thinking clearly when they hear that phrase. This is in my opinion not BLLP1E one event, because it is a continuing major international story, with implications on public policy. BLP is based on do not harm, and this article does no harm. I would take a look for additional international stories, as the most likely approach, or for its inclusion in a book--even if it takes a while, before going to del rev. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I simply dont get the BLP argument, which relates to contentious info not sourced in RS. IMO, being a victim of sex offender registration legislation is not contentious; and even if perceived as such, when referenced in a leader in the The Economist, this exceptional RS would trumph it all. I likewise fail to see BLP1E when The Economist consider the case relevant for national policy in many countries. The RS span at least two years, this is not NEWS. Being nominated for speedy and PROD within a few days I was not exactly taken aback by the AfD nom. But the pile-on of delete votes by editors who I respect, and the repeated rapid snow closures was a real so-called qualitative surprise to me, and I think it reflects group think. As this has flabbergasted me, I would like to ask for your opinion, if my reasoning is flawed. I dont have the time this week to dig into what human rights organization have written about the case. But could you line up some reasons, why a DRV could possibly fail. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI. I have jotted down some refs that might aid your assessment of DRV chances , even though I really should spend my time otherwise. User:Power.corrupts/Sandbox/Allison sources. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just adding my $0.02 here. DGG is right in that AfDs should generally be kept open for the full seven days, but BLP violations (which this article was IMO) need to be dealt with differently. Therefore I endorse Tiptoety's early closure, and if I had to guess, I'd say consensus at DRV would likely say the same. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(I asked Julian to comment, btw). In practice, I agree it will be an uphill fight and I consequently continue to advise waiting for more material--additional material is the most frequent reason for permitting re-creation of an article. I share Power.corrupts' surprise at the rejection of his arguments without any attempt to refute them,, and am further astounded at refusal to permit normal discussion by good faith editors. "It is a BLP-violation because we say it is" strikes me as the sort of non-argument that must be based on something other than reason, but I can only speculate about what it might be based on. I am unfortunately too involved with some other things here to take the lead in dealing with this, much though i would like to. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

reguarding redirects

I wrote on another editors page the possibility of a RFC.[7] I know you were embrolled in all of this. I don't want to have hundreds of newly created WP:BATTLEs over redirects now.

The redirecting was supposed to stop these battles.

As I mentioned to LibStar, I always wondered what he would do when he was unable to delete anymore articles. I saw a preview earlier: put the articles up for deletion a second time, and now today, put the redirects up for deletion.

Please advise if you think a RFC would be a good idea, either highlighting the editor, or over the entire series of articles. Ikip (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been seen many times. Many many times. In many subjects. The various XfD processes other than AfD are small closed shops where newcomers are badly needed, but generally not very welcome, at least until they learn the particular style of argument that works. And even then, it's one newcomer at a time, so they can expect to hand in there for a very long time until there are enough new people to have much of an effect. My proposal is the deletion of a redirect after an AfD should go to AfD, where it will be visible.

With respect to changing articles into redirects, as you have proposed elsewhere, this is now a multi-directional conflict between

a./changing to redirects with the intention of then doing a merge, because of thinking the material is best put in the larger or more accepted articles

b./ changing to redirects in order to preserve the content in the history for future expansion gradually

c./ changing to redirects in order to do gradually try to delete the redirects, in the hope that RfD is relatively poorly watched as compared to AfD

d./ keeping as small articles in the hope of improving them quickly

e./ keeping as small articles in the hope of defending them at AfD

f./ keeping as small articles in the hope of merging then into larger or more accepted articles

I favor f as a second choice to d. As you are now seeing, using redirects especially when the material is not clearly represented in the article redirected to is a poor and unstable compromise--& should be done as an act of desperation only. It's technically called "keep", but it is not. It's a delete as far as the article is concerned, which is no longer visible to users. The only difference is that the history stays there read to restore. But history can always be retrieved for those wanting to work on articles. I look forward to restoring improved versions of essentially all these articles over the next year or two. My working guide is Big with anything: article; Medium with Medium:article; Medium with Small: article if on same continent or otherwise related or if there are special circumstances, otherwise merge; Small with Small: article only if they are close neighbors or there are special circumstances; otherwise merge. No redirects. No deletions. I can understand people going one step less inclusive, and I'll accept Big with Small or Medium with Medium if merged. I will not accept any redirect or deletion, but how hard I will fight them depends on the circumstances. Usually I won't fight a redirect very hard--but that will change immediately if people start trying devices like deleting redirects that were originally articles. A person who !votes for a redirect with the intention of later deleting it is in my opinion not acting in good faith, and is violating NOT BUREAUCRACY, as with other procedural tricks.

The odds of anything good happening at a conduct RfC are never very great unless the person is cooperative and in good faith-- and if they are then an RfC should not be necessary. The visibility. What Wikipedia needs is ways to encourage more people to participate in RfD and similar processes, and do what the judgment tells them on all sorts of articles. Not to get decisions I would prefer on this topic--which might not be the result, but to get better decisions generally, which is much more important. And more people in any process here protect against error, prejudice, and trickery. Unfortunately, too much rescue work in these processes takes time from improving articles and few people can keep it up for long. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks DGG for your comments. whilst we don't always agree, the best way is to get more people involved in discussion to gain better consensus of issues. I'd rather spend my time improving notable articles than arguing over policy interpretations. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your long, thoughtful response DGG. I find it ironic that only you can get away with such long answers. Several other editors have been critized for such long answers. You probably are excempt because you are a much better writer than those other editors.

It appears like LibStar was only targeting a small, select group of redirects, it felt like peeling onions to get to the real answer from him.

I wish he would have contacted me first before putting these redirects up for deletion, I would have simply renamed these redirects correctly.

I have more questions than answers at this point. The opaque way wikipedia works, I may never have all the answers to what happened today and why. Ikip (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. You never will. And it is not worth trying. The thing to do is acknowledge everyones good faith all around, and get on with things. Lib Star, if you nominated them in good faith please do not read any implications into what I said above & if it sounds otherwise I apologize. I was discussing a general problem. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

no problems DGG. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You participated in the recent Avatar (Ultima) AFD. You may be interested in the merge discussion.

I'm contacting all those who participated in the AFD for Avatar (Ultima) about a merge discussion affecting that article Talk:List_of_Ultima_characters Dream Focus 03:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I am wondering, has there ever been a comprimise suggested that we sacrifice all character pages for episodes? i.e. episodes are permitted, but charcters cannot get a seperate page and must be in a list?

If this is a good idea, a eureka idea, (which it probably isn't) erase this edit and push it as your own, because many editors would scoff simply because I suggest it.

I would suggest suggesting it on ARS, and see what my collegues think of it. Ikip (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would strongly prefer it the other way round. Even at the most restrictive view, some characters are in fact very clearly notable. On the other hand, it should always be possible to easily write an article for a series of episodes. And in any case, don't think list", think "combination article". The solution is to routinely rely on such articles except in special cases, and the locus of debate should be 1/ where to draw the line and , even more important 2/ How much information to include. I would gladly exchange separate articles for substantial coverage in merged articles. At this point, I think most people would accept that, rather than debate the question further. Ikip (talk)

As for for ARS, I have always thought they should concentrate on the best, and exceptional neglected articles on things that surprisingly turn out to be notable, and aim for a very high success rate for those they do work on. Articles are not like swimmers--we do not have to rescue every one. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have gotten some suprisingly postive views on this suggestion. But I know there is little chance of it happening, especially if I said it. 04:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Otechestvenniye Zapiski

Hello. I was just checking from your edit summary on this dab if you were planning to create articles on these. At the moment, it's not a valid dab, so I thought I'd check with you what your intentions were first before taking it to AfD. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing I do not want to do is quarrel with a good editor, especially one who write articles in an important and interesting area very neglected at Wikipedia but very close to my own interests. Another is to start yet another policy discussion in yet another area. But I think it isn't in the spirit of NOT BUREAUCRACY to remove navigation guides that will obviously be needed. Red links are helpful: This page could be seen as a preliminary combination article for the newspapers. (true,. they are likely not related except for the name. but someone looking there will find at least the dates for whichever of the newspapers they are looking for, and this by itself may be the information needed. I'll make stubs, though in the next few days or so. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at TParis00ap's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BLP at Norman Davies

Re: [8] - I was never happy with that section, recently a chunk was deleted (see article's talk). While I am tempted to rv the anon, I do wonder if the section is BLP-compliant? Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the article's talk? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Like you, I don't like removals of substantial content by anons. The question of his possible bias is certainly relevant, and the sources adequate, it being recognized that any source on this subject will itself have a bias. I think it meets BLP. But the section needs considerable improvement & probably elaboration. The sentence Davis supporters... needs to be sourced; the relevance of his quote is not that clear to me--it does not answer the criticism but deals with a somewhat different issue. Whether he underestimates Polish anti-Semitism is one question; whether his view of the events diminish the uniqueness and significance of the Holocaust is another. And what others say in his defense is more relevant here than what he says, in any case. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this?

What exactly is this: Professor of Modern History, Glasgow? Abductive (reasoning) 07:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have seen it before. Well, what do you think of making them into navboxes? Abductive (reasoning) 07:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think navboxes are overused, when a simple list would do as well--as it does here. Graphics of this sort should be an exception when needed, not routine. (Admitted, I tend to be verbally oriented--even so, this is a topic likely to be of interest to people who are equally verbally, not graphically oriented). In particular I don't see the point of navboxes for people unless there is some value to the sequence, not just the individual people. Fine for successive Mayors, or anything where it really is of interest who came before or after. But I don't see this here; it matters who all of them are, not who came after whom. This serves at present a checklist function : red links that should be filled in. Such links serve as a guide to systematic work, per WP:RED--especially in a case where somebody who could do one of them is likely to be able to do the others. Additionally, there could and should be added some information about the professorship in general- there's usually some information about the foundation or the endowment. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Coverage of academics is so very uneven…. Abductive (reasoning) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You may find this a useful argument in some deletion discussions

Responding to several comments over at the NOT talk page, based on the idea of "unencyclopedic" content, I put up a new section, Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#The reason why the "unencyclopedic" argument just doesn't fly on that talk page. Much of the "unencyclopedic" argument is a pet peeve of mine. It's a bit of a tangent to the main discussion, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on it. Basically, when people say "unencyclopedic", they may be under the impression that Wikipedia policy is a lot more restrictive than it really is. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"unencyclopedic" just as well as "encyclopedic" is a word that can mean whatever one wants, and any book, can be called an encyclopedia. Therefore either terms can be used to support any argument whatsoever. I tend to interpret "unencyclopedic" as meaning "inappropriate for this encyclopedia." I've commented there. It's interesting seeing all the perfectly reasonable arguments being used to destroy the weird and inconsistent assortment of criteria we use in Wikipedia to decide what to include as articles or as content. Nonetheless some things do belong and some do not, and we have to find some way of agreeing on what. Find a rule, almost any rule, and with enough ingenuity one can use that rule to support either keeping or not keeping any particular article. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion wanted re: Cultural memory

Hello, DGG. First, let me assure you that I have not been involved in any way with editing/ tagging or discussing this article with any other editor. I just came across it today while doing a Google search for "Nostalgic Depression" (a wholly-unrelated subject). I can't quite pin down exactly why, but I feel this article is unsalvageable and should be deleted. I thought you might be a good resource to consult, as you have access to collegiate library resources. Some obvious problems I can say about the article are:

• Lacks inline citations for numerous statements that are either stated opinions or apparent statements of fact that are likely to be challenged
• Does not have a lead paragraph that provides context for the reader prior to getting into deep technical discussion
• Is written in the wrong voice; speaks directly to the reader and uses "your" and "our", (like a children's encyclopedia or textbook does)

While these things could certainly be improved through editing, I just am not sure if the article is worth the effort, because it:

• Seems (to me) to be one person's thesis or essay on an obscure subject
• Does not appear to make any assertion that the subject is notable

I also note from the article history that it was penned by a single-purpose account, whom several other editors have suggested is likely the fringe theorist who wrote part (one chapter) of one of the books listed in the references section, which is extensively referred-to in the article. As such, the article may serve as a self-promotional piece. Do you agree? Any suggestion on how to proceed? Thanks for your time. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As you say there are two questions: whether the subject is worth an article, and whether this article is satisfactory. First,. as the article says, the term has been used in different ways. The historiographic concept is not obscure or fringe in any sense: its principal proponent is in the Académie française. . Personally, I my first impression is to see this as an apparent example of European theorizing in which words are deliberately used other than in their common meaning--I think the ordinary definitions of " history" and "memory" are exactly opposite to the definitions here. However, I have not read Nora's work; his bio in Wikipedia lists an accessible article on it in the major US history journal , and reading it would seem the obvious place to start, if one decides to have the patience to try to understand it.

The "embodied memory" concept is I think mainstream, and since there are academic publications on it by several authors, it too cannot be considered fringe or obscure. (In fact, unlike the historiographic, it even makes a certain amount of sense to me. I think it is explained fairly well by the short article in the German Wikipedia; the Dutch one may also be helpful, but i cannot do more than guess at the contents.) The importance of Stewart's use of the term is unfamiliar to me, but she is clearly a major author, with multiple books from a major university press.[9]; I therefore cannot see how her work can be called fringe or obscure either.

More generally, a Wikipedia article need not say "this is notable because it is covered in several academic papers", it just has to show that it is discussed by them and the references seem fully sufficient to show that. Most of the contents of an encyclopedia like ours can be expected to be obscure--to provide information is why comprehensive reference works are written. No subject is too technical to be covered, if it is explained properly--properly means so that those people who are likely to be interested in the subject can understand the article. As for me, I have little interest in theoretical cultural studies or current historiography, and I am therefore unwilling to judge by the fact that I cannot understand parts of the article.

But I can judge enough to see that the present article has major deficiencies, and I agree with your analysis of them. Yes, much of the article has been written by an author with COI, & it is therefore a fair question how much it reflects that person's views. The article needs inline citations (not all articles do, but a discussion like this one cannot be supported by merely general references), It is definitely written as an essay, making generalizations & evaluations to an extent that is not appropriate to an encyclopedia, certainly lacks clarity, and does need a better lede paragraph: it therefore needs to be rewritten completely by someone who understands the subject. I would suggest that the first steps would be an article on Stewart, and expansion of the article on Nora based on the one in the French Wikipedia . An approach by author often clarifies things. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for your response, DGG. Can I have your permission to copy our correspondence here to the article talk page, so that others can see our observations and then I can tag it for improvement? Perhaps one of our many wikignomes will take interest in this article and endeavor to clean it up. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I just did it. But it will take an expert, not a gnome. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mega64 episode lists

Given that the main subject itself is only barely notable "Mega64 is a DVD-exclusive series that can be only purchased on their website.", do you think there's a requirement to have four articles about it? Black Kite 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is. The solution is a merge. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is what I would have done, except the content of the DVDs is already mentioned on the main page, so there was nothing to merge IMO. Black Kite 17:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's listed only, but the nature of the episode is not specified. This is what has to be merged. I agree its not worth going to great length about it, but something needs to be said. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Emmett E.Miller, M.D.

Hello, I have just made the unhappy discovery of the deletion of this article I had created (I had had earlier questions about which to which I had replied, so had stopped following it closely). I cannot find the old version via google archived cache, is there a way to find it under wikipedia?Contrary to what you or one of the other deleters asserted the article was not "completely without" any "outside" sources, I had found and included I believe at least 2, I am certain at least one, completely independent sources. Please clarify if you would, 1) how to find the old version if possible (so I can use it to build a new one more quickly, which also addresses any questions/concerns) and 2) is there a way to be notified when any change that is a Deletion call is made to one's talk page? This part of wikipedia I'm still not familiar with and thought I had asked wikipedia to send me an email when something this big needs my attention yet I received n no such note, so how to do this info, would be appreciated, it would prevent me being caught blindsided long after a deletion request or similar urgent matter comes up. Thank you--Harel (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I have moved the deleted version to your user space, at User:Harel/Emmett E. Miller for you to work on further. This is temporary; it cannot stay there indefinitely. When you consider you have improved it enough according to the suggestions below, ask me about reinstating it. Things sometimes get removed wrongly or unfairly or prematurely, but one thing is true: we can always get it back.
2. There seems to be a notice of its nomination on your talk page, and that's what you should be looking at frequently. There's also your watchlist. You should take a look every few days. (Many systems do email people when there's a change to their user talk or to particular pages they designate, but Wikipedia had to stop doing this when we got too large.) Nobody had ever designed a system of this type as large & complicated as this, so we're pioneering. And unfortunately our system does work best for the heaviest users. Some of it is inevitable for anything large & complicated, but I'm afraid some it is because they're the ones who design the system.
3. See the discussion at the AfD for what other people think. The problem is that the material showing the notability must be references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. If you can find a few such sources, there should be no problem reinstating the article. If not, it won't stand. The rules for this are at WP:RS. The best guide for how to do things here is the free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print). DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

First, many thanks to you for the copy, I've now saved one for my files so I have a backup. I understand you to be saying notification-by-email no longer works, which is unfortunate and hopefully will someday change, but that's a separate issue and not your doing. As for the article:

I need to improve the links to the "ref" style, even though they are web pages. They are very much, indeed, independent published reliable sources, and not press releases. One of them, the first, is

http://www.newdimensions.org/program.php?id=2694

And might have been misread as a press release, but in fact, it's a National Public Radio program called New Dimensions Radio that is listing the program on which Dr. Emmett Miller appeared. (and yes, New Dimensions Radio sells CDs of their interviews, no different from NPR's Prime Time program by the AARP which lists its individual programs online, featuring guests, etc)

The second link was bad, I can't recall if it was originally different but it doesn't seem to mention Miller. The third is http://www.mothernature.com/library/bookshelf/books/47/123.cfm and I might have taken it to be "press release" if reading it too quickly but a careful look notices that it is an article on healing in which not one but several physicians and others are quoted including Paul J. Rosch, M.D., and also Dr. Miller. Miller is listed as among the five on a panel of advisors. However if a former surgeon general is on an advisory panel of a health organization and he is interviewed, this is still not a press release, and is independent if "advisory panel" has the usual meaning, then Miller has no power, they are not Chair or President or voting over articles, but merely advisors - not that different from a featured journalists, the only difference is instead of occasional pieces by these people only, you have occasional short interviews with them.. The prisma-qc.ca link is broken.

The link http://www.healthyshopping.com/books/Cart.asp?ItemNumber=1561703362 is a book by Miller in which the publisher is quoting Joan Baez. The publisher isn't as well known as Random House, but if let's say Random House had a quote by Jimmy Carter saying "Andrew Weil is..." on a book by Weil, that would seem to me to be independent, unless it was exposed as a false quote (it's been 11 or 12 years since publication and it hasn't happened), then Joan Baez is indeed independent of Miller. And this publisher is quoting her favorably about Miller.

I'll delete the "read this excellent resource and heal" part of Bernie Siegel's quote if that helps relax people until a solid online copy is found of that quote.

I've just now found a story not in the original article, at

http://www.theunion.com/article/20090823/NEWS/908219971/1066&ParentProfile=1053?FORM=ZZNR2 which is a story in a newspaper based in Grass Valley, CA. In fact in the interview Miller points out that his latest book is entirely online for free(!) so that is clearly no money for him to make. Dr. Miller's work has been powerful in my life and he is not very interested in self-promotion, so despite being one of the fathers of mind/body medicine and having originated the relaxation cassette tape in 1970, he's not as well known, but I hope all of the above links combined are more than enough to address the earlier concerns? Thanks. --Harel (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, New Dimensions Radio is not a National Public Radio show. It is a radio show that is carried primarily by NPR member stations, but appears to be wholly unrelated to NPR. ^Bongo_matic 03:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Bongo, do you know who does produce it or what it is? i've seen it cited here before. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be produced by this organization, a separate 501(c)(3). ^Bongo_matic 07:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bongo..I didn't even mean to say what I said, I meant to say NPR-carried; its definitely not NPR-created like All Things Considered...at http://www.newdimensions.org/stations.php they say they are the "longest running independently produced...interview program on NPR" so "on NPR"or carried by NPR it is. If your user name is based on a certain 1-eared rabbit that is great, by the way. --Harel (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me clear up a misunderstanding. Promotional applied to non commercial as well as commercial, and it can apply even thee is no conventional conflict of interest. If, for example, I want to promote the work of someone I admire, that's different from if I intend to write a neutral encyclopedia article about him. The difference is that promotion is telling people how good something is, as contrasted to providing encyclopedic information about it. So telling us how highly Joan Baez or any other celebrity, thinks of him, is not particularly relevant--and such testimonials are hallmarks of a promotional style of writing. If there were to be a published article from a reliable source discussing his work, written by someone who has authority to give opinions on the subject at hand, then it would be relevant--but such sources say things much differently, which is one of the ways we judge them. It is possible Miller is notable--I note that many of his self help books and tapes are in libraries--see [10]. What you now need are reviews of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point about the possibility of non-commercial promotionals. I do think, however, that while non-commercial promotionals exist, there are still cases where quoting someone is relevant...especially when in the double-bind of needing to prove subject is "notable"... I imagine a quote from Jimmy Carter saying "organization X's work is a good complement to Habitat for Humanity" would be legitimately included in X's entry...even though this is a (non-commercial) "promotional" statement..I think of it as relevant-testimonial. If not direct quotes, then certain "(item Y) has been used by (person Z)" is something that I'm sure I've seen in WP entries about Z, so long as there are references...so I hope you can see this point...That said, I agree that things like Reviews are the "heart" to start with, regardless of what other material may or may not be added..have made some progress on, and will keep looking for more,of that type, then will re-create the entry, as your other comments above seem to suggest notability with such documentation, would no longer be a concern.Thx--Harel (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Article on Turek Clinic

David -

I wanted to thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns and also to educate me. I have books on working on wikipedia and I have been doing articles - but MAN there is a lot to digest.

I am going to rewrite the article per your comments tomorrow - and I believe we can make good on all your requirements. Do have a couple of questions:

1. The Turek Clinic is obviously led by Dr. Turek. If he has received recent awards, or published recent research, while running the clinic, does that count as the clinic doing it since it was done under their aegis?

2. When a page becomes a company template - does that change the standard of verification required?

3. In many cases, I am writing articles with graphics where I have received authorization from the owner to use on rwikipedia and put into the Commons. What documentation do you require to prove that I have the right to use the photos? Alternately, should I have the photo owner post the photos and put them under commmons licensing?

I am really looking forward to being an active contributor on Wikipedia on a variety of subjects, and I greatly appreciate your guidance as I get up to speed.

Please respond back User_talk:Arthurofsun or talk:The_Turek_Clinic —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

Let me answer here, for other people sometimes comment also.

1. Sometimes an institution grows beyond a single founder, much as he may have influenced it. Such practices are notable in their own right. Not talking of obvious ones like Mayo or Menninger, I can think of some medium sized ones that probably could get articles, because they have grown to encompass several senior investigators, and not all the funding comes via the original founder. If he has received awards for his medical work, that doesn't make the place he works in notable even if he founded it. If several people working there have received awards, it can be another matter. If you cannot demonstrate it, the best thing to do is to withdraw the article and add the material to the one for Turok. There can still be a cross-reference from the clinic. Much better one really strong article.

2. A company web site is sufficient to show routine uncontested facts, just as a person's CV on his official university site is sufficient evidence of his degrees unless it's contested. . It's not enough to show it's own importance. That needs outside sources. And non-trivial ones--not just announcements, and not ones derived from PR. It rather frequently happens that someone or something that probably is notable simply cannot be shown to be so from the available published evidence--and then we regretfully can not have an article. You'll understand the incentive that would drive people to make articles for the purpose of publicity, and if possible multiple articles, and you'll also understand that our trustworthiness as an encyclopedia depends in considerable part in preventing this. We get several hundred of such articles a day, & it takes quite a few people working together almost full time to keep them out.  :

3. The rules for graphics are strict, literal, and the epitome of bureaucracy. This is necessary, because given our prominence, we can take no chances with copyright. You must explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials ; these give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes. You can either put a tag on the web material itself, or send the email to OTRS as specified there. The copyright owner must send the email. The problem is, the owner might give you rights to put it on Wikipedia, without understanding the extent to which it means giving up control, or under the impression that he is giving the rights for non-commercial use--a common misconception, since Wikipedia itself is non-commercial-- but our material must be freely used by anyone. I think it is probably enough to say that the owner has assigned you all rights. In practice, a great number of people have posted work that actually belongs to their employer under the assumption they would give permission--and it is not necessarily clear in a large organization who does have authority to release the material under a free license. Let me put in a mention for some of my favorite projects: if Dr. Turek were to publish anything in an open access journal like PLOS Medicine or a BMC journal, that material is usable without specific permission. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, again, for the clarification. Here's what I plan to do:

1. Rewrite the Turek Clinic article to make it pretty thin but with specific references from valid sources (e.g. CNN, Elsevier) as to the work done there. All facts and validated, and hopefully newsworthy

2. Put the balance of awards and other items in Dr. Turek's bio and then refer from there to the to clinic page

3. On pictures, have the original owner post them to the article and claim the CC-BY-SA rights that way rather than doing it as third-party reference.

Arthur Coleman' ( talk ) 06:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• comment deleted*

--Ethuil o Lorien (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Way to go, God

I take it that none of my pointers about why my page should stay were accepted, or even discussed, as it was deleted without any further comment. If it is indeed Wiki's policy to rule by "dictatorship" and to deliberately ignore all comments against it, then Wiki can, quite frankly, go hang itself. I did expect a bit more from this place than the usual "I don't like what you like and don't agree with you, so all your comments and arguments are obviously irrelevant", but being merely an online source (one still not accepted in university essays, for instance), I should have known better. It's the same petty policies and bickering as can be found everywhere else, and people are not really likely to be unbiased just because they suddenly get gifted with some online influence - on the contrary. --Ethuil o Lorien (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

it's very simple--unless the organization is obviously of major national interest, there has to be actual evidence of importance beyond the group's own site. it ideally needs to be references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For fan and sci fi groups we sometimes as an exception do interpret the "published" and the "not blog" parts a little loosely, recognizing where such coverage is likely to be, but this is always a matter of judgement & cannot be counted on. We're in some respects less flexible than university essays--in an essay you're usually expected to give your opinions, here you must only cite the others of others who have published them.

Wikipedia is the opposite of a dictatorship--it tends if anything to be chaos. An administrator here does not make the rules. All we get to do is apply them in obvious cases. The rules we must enforce are the one the community uses.--we're the opposite of dictators. Personally, if I made the rules I would accept well-reputed edited blogs (I've been trying for years to liberalize our guidelines on that), and perhaps be a little more flexible about local organizations. But I have to do what I'm supposed to do under the existing rules.) This deletion had agreement of two separate random admins, working independently. I think any other two would have done just the same. You have now copied it to your user page, but there are some problems even so. A page that lists membership fees for different classes of members, and contacts to find out where meetings are held, is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, wherever it appears, even in user space. It's considered it promotional, so you should remove that part. there are two ways to go: one, is to find some non-trivial references--Danish is perfectly OK, (we might ask you for a translation of the key parts, but usually we can tell by the Google translation if the material is online--if not online, you probably should quote a key phrase and say specifically how long the article is.) "non-trivial" means not just the announcement of meetings & the like. It does not have to be specifically and solely devoted to the society, but it has to be more than a paragraph as part of a listing of events or of clubs, If you do have such sources, add them, and let me know. If they seem good, I'll move the article back & anyone who doesn't like it can send it to AfD for a community decision. If they seem borderline, I'll move it back, and then start an AfD discussion myself so everyone who wishes can comment. The references will need to be very good to succeed, because fan clubs usually have had a difficult time there (I'm not necessarily saying I want it that way, just telling you what usually happens). The other way is to inset a single paragraph describing it very briefly into the Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien article, as the Swedish society did. I can then make a redirect from the name of the society to that paragraph, so anyone who enters the name of the society will immediately be taken to that paragraph. From there they should be able to figure out your website easily enough, and that will tell them the rest. You might do well in any case to add some information there about the available Danish translations. Let me know what you want. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, this is actually the first useful comment I've gotten in this whole debate - thank you for that. A well-written, thought-through reply is infinitely easier to read than the vague, non-descript replies I've been getting so far - and easier to accept, as a whole. As for what to do with the article; we'll have to see - I don't have time to re-do anything at the moment, and will need some time to figure out where to go from here.

(On a whole other matter, your username seems familiar to me. Do you frequent other sites as well?) --Ethuil o Lorien (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

grey literature subjects

• Grey Literature International Steering Committee (GLISC)
• European Association for Grey Literature Exploitation (EAGLE)
• Grey Literature Network Service (GreyNet)
• OpenSIGLE
• System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE)

All of these are currently listed, and are close to expiring, at Proposed Deletion. Please review for copyright violations and to see whether multiple non-trivial published works exist. All that I've done is cleanup, to make the articles legible. Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I was sort of hiding from this. merges suggested, but I am not sure which ones to merge into which. Possibly SIGLE into System, and GLISC and Eagle into GreyNet. Some do have refs already I may rewrite & condense enough so that copyvio won't be a problem, but I've asked the author to try first. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You can't hide from us. ☺ Anything that you can do to solve the now-identified copyright violation problem is a good thing and would be most welcome. Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability in regards to ghost towns

It is my understanding that any town that ever officially existed is notable by de facto consensus. Is that correct? (question from ThaddeusB)

• Yes, in practice that seems to be what now happens at AfD. It might not necessarily apply to a proposed site that was never inhabited. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • We did once have a ghost town deleted at AFD. I don't recall the name offhand. The issue, as I recall, was the existence of any sources at all documenting the subject in any way. Uncle G (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • FYI, The town in question - Queen City, Iowa - was sent to AfD shortly after I posted this question. It seems the interested parties didn't believe me when I told them about this de facto consensus instead insisting "no policy says all towns are notable." --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I saw this one earlier. I'll comment. Try to find a source for the archeology. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That's probably a good thing. "If article X then article Y.", which is what such an argument from precedent amounts to, is never a good argument. A good argument would be that the subject is notable, because it satisfies the PNC. All that prior outcomes tell us is that this is highly likely, because of the nature of the subject, not that it is inevitable. Notability is not a blanket. In this particular case, I came across that article doing Proposed Deletion patrol, as DGG no doubt also did. I searched and couldn't find a source documenting any such thing, although I have no access to the one source that was cited. Uncle G (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The author of the page evidently used a historical marker as their source. I undeleted their pic of said marker, which they seem to have intended to release in public domain, but was deleted because they never actually tagged it as such. I added a link at the AfD. (For clarity, I am not certain the pic can stay but it should at least be useful for verifing the contest which can be sourced to the actual marker.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Precedent is a good argument, because the hallmark of a reputable reference work is some degree of consistency. (At least that's one major factor when librarians judge it and how they advise students to judge-- it should say what it covers, and what it covers, it should cover completely.) A person should be able to come here and know what they are likely to find and what not. This is especially important in those areas where we do approach completeness. WP:V is important, but this now meets WP:V. The sources Thaddeus found are fully sufficient. A listing in USGIS is unquestionable V. I should have been able to find it, and I don't know how I missed it; and Thaddeus checked the article history, which i neglected to do--I was wondering where the data came from. This shows, , as does Ottava Rima's work on the article he talks about below, what can be done by basic checking and careful research. As for your essay, Uncle, I disagree with both the general approach and much of the detailed arguments. You set up the straw man that not all places are notable because the plot of grassland to the west of your house is not notable. Right as far as it goes, but nobody is asserting all places, we're asserting all inhabited settlements. All we need is to verify that it existed and was inhabited, which we have done--there have been a number of names on maps proposed as articles which proved not to be inhabited settlements but individual houses, and those do and should get deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Precedent is a good argument — No, see above. This is not a court or a parliament. It's an encyclopaedia, and the bounudaries of human knowledge don't follow AFD precedents. the hallmark of a reputable reference work is some degree of consistency — That doesn't mean making human knowledge uniform when it actually isn't. That's the hallmark of a poor reference work, not a good one.

              You set up the straw man that not all places are notable because the plot of grassland to the west of your house is not notable. — No. The argument isn't a straw man. It's the wording that was used for months if not years. It took several AFD discussions to see that the principle was wrong, and ill-conceived. It keeps coming back in other "All X are notable." forms, and time after time it falls down. It's long past time for us to learn from this that human knowledge is inconsistent, lumpy, and unfair, and that we are in the business of documenting it as it is, not as we want to be.

              nobody is asserting all places — Wrong, as already stated. we're asserting all inhabited settlements — and your assertion is wrong. As I mentioned, there has already been at least one ghost town for which no-one could find any documentation at all anywhere. I repeat: Human knowledge is inconsistent, lumpy, and unfair, and "All X are notable." is looking for blankets. We shouldn't be looking for blankets. We should be looking for where human knowledge is properly documented, in depth, in multiple independent published works by authors with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

side issues: which ghost town that we couldn't document have you in mind? And where were the arguments that all meadows are notable ? If we used that straw man argument for months and years, we should be glad we outgrew it. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

as I said, we disagree very fundamentally & we will probably continue to. What goes in this (or any) encyclopedia depends on 3 factors: can we write an article, is it worth writing about, and is it the sort of thing that ought to be in an encyclopedia (rather, than , say, a collection of original poetry or a game guide). We're not a court (which in anglo-american countries is bound to follow precedent unless it decides not to), or a parliament (which in the same countries is bound to follow a written or unwritten set of fundamental laws, but other does not need to follow precedent unless it chooses & is even expected to do novel things as a primary function). Still, we need a stable method of decision, just as does any publication. The editors in chief of EB can do as they please, but they are still bound to do what their readers expect of EB. We're a community controlled organization, so we are bound to do as the members want, though we expect them to follow certain basic principles about what is compatible with membership, including agreement on at least the general nature of the encyclopedia we're producing. The very fact that we have a meta-rule saying we need not follow the rules if they do not help, implies we are bound to follow the rules in most cases. It also implies that we can have whatever rules we please. We could choose to follow precedent always unless there were a reason otherwise, or to ignore it always and decide everything from scratch. But we have found if we do that we repeat the same arguments over and over, just as Arbcom thinks it has to start every decision repeating the same basic rules. Arb com can do that because it makes only a few dozen decisions a year. But there are 40,000 afds a year. Thus we generally do as we have done before in similar cases, and it is only realistic to say so. There are tens of millions of settlements. There are millions of schools, ditto. There are several million animal and plant species. We cannot argue each one of them, at least if we do anything else--and I am beginning to get to that point personally because of the need to repeat all this many times even after its been settled. So we do some preliminary rough divisions: all animal and plant species are notable. all settled communities are. High schools and colleges are. Olympic athletes are (even if nothing except their record at a single Olympic is known). Songs that chart are. Elementary schools are not. and similarly for other classes also. We even have a rule to keep the obvious non-notables out of AfD, by disposing the ones with no possible claim of importance at speedy. For each possible class, we divide it up. As for the GNG, we make it fit our ideas of what ought to be included by manipulating the definitions of "substantial coverage" and "reliable sources".

I ask you, what will we do when we do have all local newspapers in Google, and there are substantial reliable information about every local fire station and high school athlete. (we will extend what we do now, and say that significance has to be beyond the local community--this is actually abandoning the GNG in favor of a categorical guideline) I don't dislike GNG because its too deletionist. i dislike it because it's haphazard. We only need enough information for V, if the subject is worth covering and otherwise appropriate.

Now, if the GNG is the only rule, I can live with it. I remember when I came here, it was pretty much accepted, and I got rather good at hair-splitting analysis of the nature of sources, I may even have saved the same proportion of worthy articles as i do now. But I wanted to stop pretending that the exact nature of a publication mattered to notability. I'll argue however I need to, using, as I am sure you do also, my own internal guideline for what is worth trying to argue for. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicolo Giraud

A year and 11 days ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolò Giraud resulted in a keep. Today, it is a featured article. You were the first to see value in the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, working here successfully requires a long time scale. We need a few dozen skilled people with interest in other periods and countries. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Deprodding Headcrab and Father Gregori articles

For one, the Creatures page has no more value as an article than Headcrab, and Father Gregori is a minour character and can be summed up in a single sentence, which is probably already done in the Half-Life 2 article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is consensus on anything in this area, its that compromise is needed. Using combination articles for characters and settings is the obvious compromise. Won;t solve everything, but will solve most of the problems of character and setting articles. I agree that not much is needed for Father G, but if you actually look instead of guessing, you will see there is no character section in the main article at all. (I'm not sure how this has happened--it was probably unwisely removed at some point, or else people were unwisely too concerned with making over-elaborate articles on individual characters. Both extremes are not good. Nor does there seem to be any combination page. Perhaps if you were to start one, we would be able to work this out. Those who reject compromise will fight indefinitely. But anyway, don't try to do these things via prod--you must know that they will not be uncontroversial. DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There IS a plot section that mentions as much as is necessary about Father Grigori. And articles that collect merged information are useless if the merged info isn't important. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

a/c WP:N, notability is not equal to importance--whether it's more, or less, or different, & in what way(s) is one of the many ambiguities which make the various sections of WP:N capable of being used to defend almost anything with a real existence, or to attack almost anything less than famous.

The characters in a work are not important? Cf. for video games [11] (eliminating Pokemon guide), and for television [12] for film [13] & for novels [14] & [15] and for fiction in general, [16]. And add similar searches for other search terms--I just did a sampling. About one-half are relevant, and that's several thousand books, many of them from academic presses. And that's just the books, not the 10 or 20 times as many articles. Or you are perhaps arguing that though characters in fiction may be interesting in general, the characters in the Half-Life series aren't? Remember, we're talking about combination articles for characters in the work as a whole, not about any specific character.

If you want to argue that characters and characterization in video games as a genre are not as important as in other genres, or that they (and the plot, for that matter) are not the most important factors in video games, as compared to game-play and action and visual effects, I'd certainly agree with you. But we cover all aspects. I'd agree we should not cover most video game characters in the same detail as we would for film or the novel. But that does not mean we should not cover them in separate sections or subarticles. (I am not defending individual articles for video game characters--except when its necessary to counter the attempts to not cover them at all, or only submerged in other content).

Incidentally, characters in video games are not at all interesting to me--the only video games I play are simulation games and some strategy games that are mainly simulation. And my feeling about Halflife is some amazement why people like it so much. Perhaps the characters are more interesting than typical. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have created a first draft of a notability guideline for academic journals, so that we may have a better chance in future to avoid things like this. Please feel free to comment/correct/complete, etc. I would appreciate your comments either on the draft's talk page or here. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

basically OK, if it's accepted. I'll look at details later. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dear David, your talk page is so busy, that I am taking it off my watchlist, so when you find a moment to respond, please do so on the talk page of the draft guidelines. Thanks! Wim --Crusio (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

On a List of the disappeared up for deletion

Hi David hope you are fine. Don't know if you will get to it before it is deleted but I though you could provide a word or two on this deletion. List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime. Regards, Moshe-paz (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion at the WT:NOT page. If the guidelines on this change, this can be reconstructed if it meets whatever rules we then have. This sort of list is one of the things intended by NOT MEMORIAL. (the other is obits of non-notable people). I previously supported some such lists, but I now think there's a pretty firm consensus otherwise. What I think ought to be the policy is another matter entirely. I sometimes think we should have a secondary part of Wikipedia - not Wikia, free from ads, still following our basic policies of V, but with some of the guidelines relaxed, such as perhaps this and also the one on local notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A very similar issue resulted in the 9/11 wiki being moved to a separate - advert free - project. (See Wikipedia:9/11 victims for the garbled discussions that led to it.) – iridescent 20:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

`

Articles about Palestine-Israeli violence

Hi David. I was wondering what your thought about articles like Violence in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2000. Do you think we should have articles listing every civilian that ever died in a conflict, especially when it is unreferenced and contianing a lot of unbalanced missing information according to some people. Does wikipedia really need to list every civilian who ever died? To me it seems problematic and likely to continue to be a target for conflict... As you have much experience with AFDs I wanted to know your thoughts before I take them to AFD. Himalayan 13:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Don;t do this one at a time, but start a general discussion. If it's done via AfD, the results will be inconsistent and confusing. But one of the things which is not relevant is that we would be missing information or have unbalanced coverage for some people--except for a few obvious groups like Presidents, whenever we do a group we're missing information for some people--there are many Olympic athletes where we know no more than the name and the sport and the year. In some cases, it might be extremely difficult to find more even with serious research. Similarly for state legislators, even in the US. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canon_DV_012

Hi, DGG!

Further to the decision at the above AfD, I'm in the process of implementing the merge that you and I opined (and the closer agreed). Want to help out?

Cheers—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian v. Vegetarianism

Hi David. I hope you're enjoying your weekend. When you get a chance I'd appreciate it if you would have a look at the vegetarian article and the related AfD. It's new and was formerly a redirect to vegetarianism. There is a debate about whether it is a distinct and independently notable subject and I would be interested in your opinion and that of anyone watching your talk page. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded, but I hope you did not assume what I would say. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I appreciate your candid input and expect nothing less. You made some good points. At the very least, I think the vegetarian cuisine and nutrition articles you pointed out should be made more prominent (in the opening paragraphs) of the vegetarianism article since vegetarian diet and vegetarian redirect to it. A merge of vegetarian to those existing articles might be okay.

I think it's unfortunate that new articles aren't given time to fully develop and blossom. Retitling, merges, etc. evolve over time as sources and content development indicates how best to handle a subject. The rush to abort anything that isn't fully developed deprives the encyclopedia of a lot of good content and many notable article subjects. I still think the ideology is distinct from the diet. But c'est la vie. Cheers. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Biography

Hi DGG. is this person notable? ^Bongo_matic 15:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If he founded the Computational Linguistics Program and Laboratory for Computational Linguistics at Carnegie-Mellon, probably he is. Why not check his books & add them to the article.? DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The "books" found in Google books do not appear to be actual books for the most part (I don't see anything in WorldCat Identities for him). The few papers he authored that can be found in Google scholar do not appear to be widely cited. The program / laboratory do not appear to have been given any meaningful coverage even in internal CMU documentation, leading me to believe they are likely simply the names he gave to his funded research programs, indications that—like any working science professor—he received grant money.

You could argue that he meets WP:PROF on the basis of his election to academic societies—but do you see any evidence for more personal basis for inclusion here? ^Bongo_matic 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Kenneth Kronberg - I would like your opinions on the matter. It seems that this individual was only notable for a suicide, and then other information (some of it original research) appears to be tossed in based on notability from being a suicide. The WP article is merely an obit and there are much longer for other non-notable people. I found this because someone added the name as a notable graduate of one of my almas under the claim that he had a "philosophy degree" (my school does not offer "majors" for undergrads - there is one set curriculum, so the claim was patently false). This reference bothers me - that book was written by the current president of the Annapolis campus and has no mention of the individual from what I can see. There aren't even any page numbers to check where the claim came from. The book itself deals with the founders of the school's graduate program during the beginning of the 20th-century, so it is very different from the article. This appears to be the only use of him in the book, which deals only with a letter about offering students a chance to come to the Kenneth's group.

The Larouche movement stuff appears to be a coatrack and has very little to do with him directly. Mere mention of him as a member is used to justify tons of sources not about him or having little to do with him. As such, I would like you to look through it and see if it really falls under notability (or should any info about him and Larouche simply be merged into another page). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

ISee my earlier comment at [17]. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

But this is a later concern and one that was not brought up before - coatrack would say not to use a biography to describe another topic. Regardless, I am talking about if the non-Larouche stuff can accurately be a determiner of notability. I say no, as many of the sources do not stand up or are incorrectly used. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Independent companies

As per the discussion at WT:MILHIST, I've started a deletion discussion for the 722nd Ordnance Company (United States). Please come and give your opinion. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 21:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday September 13th, Columbia University area Last: 07/25/2009

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

John Crout

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Phantomsteve's talk page.
Message added 02:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GiftTree

Hi, DGG. Could you userfy GiftTree to User:Cunard/Article/GiftTree, so that I can rewrite, source, and move it back to mainspace? I believe that this company passes WP:CORP per this article from The Columbian, this article from smallbusinesscomputing.com, this article from Vancouver Business Journal and many more in Google News Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

done. When it's ready, move it back, and explain on the talk page in detail how its diffferent from the deleted article. I know you can judge that well. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's ready for mainspace, so I have moved it back. I've left a note on the talk page. Thanks for restoring the article to my userspace so quickly! Best, Cunard (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Herb Ringer

Hello DGG, evil deletionist ogre here. Do you think anything can be done for Herb Ringer? Perhaps I started its AfD with too withering a tone; anyway, rabid inclusionist voices are welcome to pipe up there. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably for an article like that, it's fairer to try to edit it a a tolerable state before nominating, but I too rarely do that work unless i think its salvageable enough not to nominate. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered this or a similar conundrum before. Consider this fragrant article. I know little about color landscape photography of the kind that's marketed as calendars, but sensed that some worthwhile content lurked within the promotion. So I cut the article down to size, facing vigorous resistance along the way (see the talk page, passim). I wasn't sorry when it came up in an AfD, and was set to "not-vote" for deletion when a comment from Mr Wolfowitz made me rethink. So I edited it further, to the point where I could vote "keep" with a clear conscience. Yet the autobiographer is far from happy. -- Hoary (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I am coming to the opinion that we need a structured format for many sorts of articles, based perhaps on the infoboxes. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

List of mathematics articles (J-L)

I believe you misunderstood my reason for nominating the page. See the new AfD for it. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) -

seems I did--certainly wasnt clear to me. if you;d asked me, I would have put back the prod. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

Hi DGG

Could I trouble you for your views on the notability of Claire Loewenfeld‎? Mine are detailed at the AfD discussion for that article. I find the arguments for notability entirely unpersuasive. But if the arguments are correct, and notability (as defined here) is established, doesn't that mean (if we were seeking consistency) we ought to revamp things like WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE to substantially lower the bar?

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why the need to use library resources should affect the bar at WP:PROF and WP:CREATIVE. It just means that arguments based on inadequate sources need to be checked first in a library. . We need not to lower our standards of notability, but raise our standard of research. And of judgment--it was easy to predict that someone who had published 6 books with major publishers would be notable, and not appropriate for trying to delete. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Bongo_matic 23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

List of floods in Bangladesh

DGG, I noticed that you removed the prod and speedy deletion tags from List of floods in Bangladesh. The article has existed for over a year, and has only ever contained a navigation box linking to non-existent sections within the same article. None of the links in the article actually take you anywhere. While I am sure a good article could be written on a list of floods in Bangladesh, this article doesn't list any, and given that the article creator hasn't worked on it in over a year, I still think it should be deleted. If someone wants to create an actual list of floods in Bangladesh in the future, they can always start one, but I don't think keeping this useless navigation box around is helpful. Calathan (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

actually, I carelessly thought the pages were there--checking, there is in fact one potential article 1999 Bangladesh floods. I added that actual link. I imagine there were floods every year to some degree or other, but if the articles are not written, the box does seem unnecessary -- the user who made it is still occasionally active. I would suggest asking him his plans, and, if not, asking the relevant wikiproject if they want to adopt it. If it were kept, the ones with no article would need to be unlinked, and that too is work, but it took a good deal more work to even build the table. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied

Replied to you at Logan family. Rocksey (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

closings on deletion review

Not that I generally disagree with what you say, but perhaps you are doing too high a proportion of them. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I looked through my contributions and I see that my early closes at DRV fall into 3 clear groups. Procedural closes - articles outside the purview of DRV; abusive nominations - I have consistently been closing them to avoid soapboxing and never had any complaints about it and, finally, early closes so we don't get bogged down in process and the nominator can go do what they need - the OTRS one was a case in point. I think this is the first time someone mentioned the early closes to me and I hadn't thought I was particulary out of kilter with expectations. I don't think we have a consensus on early closing criteria. Do you think it would be helpful to discuss this on talk-DRV and get some wider feedback on this? Otherwise, I will reflect on your point and be a little slower to act. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: impact factor etc

Thanks for your praise! Don't worry about not doing enough yourself, I often wonder if you ever even sleep! But now I have you feeling guilty, perhaps I can use that to entice you to have a more detailed look at the draft journal guidelines that I proposed? :-) As there have been only very few reactions, maybe I should drop this? But I still feel it would be good to have some guidelines around. (Even though articles like this may always pose problems, haven't gotten around to cleaning it up yet, but have already seen that it does not have an IF, although it is in PubMed. That would qualify it under the draft guidelines, without those this would be vulnerable to deletion, I think).--Crusio (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will get there tomorrow. If there's no opposition.... DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

List of German rocket scientists in the United States

Hi DGG Thanks for adding those references. I don't think there are a lot of editors watching/working on that page, so good work adding in some substance. That said, having been reminded of the topic I took a look at the Operation Paperclip article and frankly it seems to me that we have two rather mediocre articles instead of one better article. Since 90% + of the scientists who came to the US did so under OC, I wonder if we could merge the two together and include a brief post-scripta about the legacy of the German rocketry technology in the US after the OC auspices officially ended (affecting the last few figures in the list article). This would involve redirecting the GRSUS page to the OC page and then replacing the list section in the latter with the substantive material in the former. It seems to me from the point of view of offering encyclopaedic information about the topic, reuniting the two is of greater service to the a reader. Anyway, I am interested in your thoughts and, if you would be agreeable, to check te results of such a merge which I think could be achieved rather quickly. I don't want to do a merge though without your support, though. Eusebeus (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I found it checking PRODs. There are a number of other pages involved also, and the topic is capable of substantial growth. I 'm not sure it's reducible to a single page--I could see instead an increased number, considering we are talking about a/the recruitment of German scientists b/their specific contributions on the rocket program--some of them worked elsewhere c/ the coverup of Nazi affiliations respecting many of them d/the coverup of Nazi affiliations among German academics in general by the US and e/closely analogous situations with the Soviet Union. The current paperclip page is dominated too much by the qy of the coverup of Nazi affiliations, although this was equally for German academics who remained in Germany--as you probably know, there's a good amount of current interest and publication-- primarily in Germany, at long last--with special concern over jurists and physicians. (I intend to add some material on Nazi human geneticists) In any case, that 10% is going to be a problem. But the main reason I want to keep it separate is because seen just as a list, there should be a high priority in getting articles on the unlinked--separate lists seem to work as a psychological incentive. I have not checked yet to see what's on the deWP. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For taking your time and rewriting copyright violations at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Your work there is noted and much appreciated! Theleftorium 20:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

deletion review clarification

crotalus said "No one has the authority to dictate a 1-year waiting period before renomination. The people asking for that were the same bullshidoistas who kept adding BLP-violating crap to the article," which is why I mentioned your name, because I was referencing you [[18]] as the person who asked for a 1 year waiting period for the next AFD. i didn't think it was right for him to call you a "bullshidoista who was adding blp violating crap to the article" which does not appear to be true. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but you should have done it without mentioning my name, since he hadn't--it's that which would have turned it into a PA. The term should not be used unnecessarily--it's a serious charge. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

he didn't mention you by name, but he said "the people asking for the 1 year waiting period are bullshidoistas who add BLP violates to the article" and since you asked for the 1 year waiting period, i felt it was a personal attack. if I said "anyone who voted against this afd is a vandal" and you voted against the afd and were not a vandal, i still think it'd be a personal attack whether i mentioned you by name or not. but i'll strike through your name if you want Theserialcomma (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sport tourism

Watch your tone. Not everyone is as "knowledgeable" about the convoluted deletion procedures as you evidently think you are but nominations are made in good faith. The article has clearly been plagiarised as any experienced editor can see. As it happens, there is an existing article about the topic so it is best dealt with by a redirect. --Jack | ^{talk page} 03:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment to you, [19] seems about as helpful as i or anyone can do it. I have been known to be a little sarcastic or snarky, and in those cases i apologise, but this wasn't one of the times I get tempted to do it. I see I am not the only one to remind you about how to use Speedy G12. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Examples of (type II) patent nonsense

Since I (vaguely) recall you having expressed concerns in the past with some editors/admins improperly proposing/deleting stuff as WP:NONSENSE, perhaps you can comment on the examples I proposed. That guideline does not appear to get a lot of traffic. Thanks, Pcap ping 22:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Need A Favor

Hello David, first, hope all is well with you and yours. Need a favor! In cleaning-up my various pages, I came accross two articles that I wanted to clean-up, source and just bring up to standards. Sorry to say, they have been deleted. Can you restore and place in my sub-page for me to work on. Thanks in advance for your help. Here are the pieces; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Host.net and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Time Machine (Radio) et al Thanks, ShoesssS ^Talk 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Restored User:Shoessss/Host.net; I'm a little puzzled at Time Machine, because the AfD closed with a keep. The subsequent history is not clear to me -- I'm checking, because there are also the pages for each episode, which I assume you want also. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be perfect if you can get them. Regarding the delete, I think it was one of those situations, where someone had a point to make and was nominating until they got the right mix to say delete. Sorry to say, I see that happening more and more. Either way, I know I can get that one up to speed so that it should not be challanged again. By the way, thanks for the help. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I first want to try for a day to follow this up, because something seems really wrong--unless copyvio was discovered, in which case I think you'd want to know, so you would see how much to rewrite. Sometimes I'm dismayed that we make about 10% error in deletions, but then I realize that given our lack of system, it could have been 20%. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL not a problem - Yes I would want to know about copyright violations. Typically I do check that first. As an example, the one you just put on my sub-page is a word for word cut and paste from the companys web-site. But that is easily fixed. Regarding the Radio Tales, if it is copyright violation, again that would be an easy fix. Regarding the 10%, as they say ^$#@ happens. The ones that real frustrate me are the nominations where even minimal investagation is not taken. But than again, when that happens, it actually gives me something to do, and I have actually been getting some DYKS out of it. See that, every situation has a silver lining. In the mean time, take care, and just drop me a note when find the answer. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 01:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Radio Tales

Yes indeed.... the series (or at least those nominated) survived as a speedy keep in September 2008. At that time, Themfromspace must not have been a happy camper. A renomination 5 months later by User:Laurent1979 in February 2009 (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_German_Student_(radio)) of the entire slew of them resulted in a sadly and overwhelming deletion... the ignored problem with the disruption caused by mass nominations... when babies get tossed with the bathwater... and so much must be done at once that little gets done at all... and what is done is ignored. I argued as diligently as I could, but it seems that in the rather acrimonious AfD, the deletion was preordained. The speedy keep of 5 months previous made absolutely no difference in the discussions. The 2009 AfD discussion is enlightening. Draw your own conclusions. I asked for all of them to be userfied to me. As they sat in my userspace, other editors worked diligently to merge the content as best they could into the Radio Tales article... gratitudes to User:Kainaw, User:American Eagle, and User:Deor in moving the list and as much content from the stubs as was reasonable. 3 months later, when I saw that others had done the merging, I requested deletion of the pages [20]. However.... here is my special contributions page from the timeframe they were userfied... showing the names they were placed under when moved. Surprisingly enough, the userfied talk pages still exist... and so this page may allow undeletion of the articles and subsequent userfication to someone else's userspace. A sad day and a sadder commentary. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And of course.... 'merge' and 'move' are not the proper terms, as the histories of 63 different articles were not included with the transfer of information. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that at the AfD I myself joined in suggesting the merge, based on what seemed to me the excessive detail of the individual articles. (I didn't recall that this was the same group of articles just now) Looking back at them, I continue to think there was excessive detail and repetition for them viewed as episodes. There seems to have been the very peculiar argument used later in the discussion that we were not removing information, since the plots were available in the articles for the original works. Obviously there were always be differences in any dramatization or even reading from the original. The discussion of these differences is just what belongs in an encyclopedia. This shows again that we have no good way of controlling what happens in a merge--and that is what makes all the difference between constructive building of good encyclopedia articles and destruction of them. I am open to suggestions.

1 We might need to require all contested merges, or merges following AfD to be discussed at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, turning it from a mere list of where discussions take place to a page the equivalent of WP:AFD. The talk pages of individual articles will not get proper attention. I have not proposed it because I think that doing this along with AfD would be too much work for people to follow. I find that I am stretched to the limits to try to look at each of the 1000 afds--rather to each of the 500 among them that I might be able to intelligently consider.

2 We might require the AfD discussion to actually specify what should be merged, and give the closing admin the responsibility to see that it is done right. This would require people to only close if they were prepared to do this: knew enough of the topic to supervise intelligently, were willing to take the time, and did not have any preconceived bias on how they should be done. I am not aware of anyone who really meets all 3 requirements. Everyone who considers the fiction problem sufficiently to understand it has a bias about how the situation should be handled. This is true also of other complicated topics.

3 Committees. A great deal can be accomplished with a designated pair of one person from each position acceptable to the other side. there would have to be an appeal. This would be adding considerable structure Wikipedia, which in general is not a good thing to do. The virtue would be that it would save enough time from repetitive general argument to balance that.

4 Dividing the overall encyclopedia into subject portions, somewhat in the manner of Citizendium, so people need to concentrate only on one or two of them. This will have the same problem as it does at Citizendium--that a group will become autonomous and make editorial decisions that the community as a whole would not support. This has already happening at Wikipedia, where the WikiProject films has a content guideline which prohibits character sections in articles, dividing it up among a very brief plot summary and a list of the cast. They seem to forget that a film is a story, and the technology and business of making it --however fascinating--is secondary to the story--and that for almost all films the aspect of the story of concern to users is the characters--perhaps even more so than other fiction.

5 Accepted compromise guidelines for what to do so we don't have to fight about the general acceptability of articles and structure. I prefer short articles, which I think better suit the average Wikipedian writing skills. But I'd accept long ones, too, with multiple subdivisions. The problem is agreeing how detailed they should be, and i do not see people willing to compromise here. Assuming they did, we have no mechanism for a stable compromise. The strongest we have of informal compromises, schools, still gets challenged once or twice a week & takes careful watching to prevent an aberrant decision that would be used as a precedent. We need an attitude against ownership of policy, where we each accept that some things will be done always altogether wrong, but we leave them alone. I do not immediately see how to develop such an attitude. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In the meanwhile , as a practical matter, it would be nice having some help undeleting & userifying them all for further work, however it works out. Perhaps the best solution would be for Shoessss to become an admin. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks David for your help. I have been thinking about picking-up the lance and tilting at that preverbal Windmill one more time. ShoesssS ^Talk

Index medicus

This should be moved to Index Medicus, I think, as it is a proper name. I know there is a template to request this move (Index Medicus is currently a redirect to Index medicus), but for the life of me I cannot remember what it is. Can you perhaps do the move or point me to the template? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's simpler to just ask me to do it than to find the right procedure. I'll do it, to fit the usual pattern.

Unnecessary details follow: from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)]], the rule only applies to English titles. This is a Latin title, and , checking my references , they mostly say there are no firm rules, as everything possible is sometimes found. (though Chicago, which we usually follow if in doubt, says to generally do modern works in upper case, ancient in lower) The enWikipedia seems to do both ancient & modern ones inconsistently--cf. Hugo Grotius, while the frWP and deWP do ll of them consistently in l.c. , ancient or modern. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ikip/2009_September_5

What do you think, you have been the biggest critic thus far (but there has been lackluster interest in this). Something you would use? Ikip (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

hey, are you really busy? I would love your opinion. Ikip (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Yasgur

Re the PROD: Not sure what you mean by "2009 movie," but he is not portrayed in Taking Woodstock. I just saw the movie the other day. Is he portrayed in another movie?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Searching IMDB, I find him interviewed in a German documentary, undoubtedly because he is the son of Max. Nothing else. Just to clarify, do you feel that his role in this documentary is what makes him notable? I can find any reference to him as involved in any other 2009 film.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll fish out the review I have in mind tomorrow & see if I remember it correctly. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, glad you declined the PROD. I nominated for deletion, but then I found information that undercut my initial rationale, and I withdrew my AfD. I guess this is an argument against hasty capital punishment of articles! --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Rhenman

DGG, since you're well-versed with AfD procedures, could you please comment here with regards to procedural nominations? A few users have raised objections to such nominations, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Justified in general, as I commented there, but try to avoid the phrase, & do only in real doubt, not for every challenged speedy. For this particular person, I would not have brought it there. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

evaluate shirechurch?

Bunzyfunzy (talk · contribs) is requesting unprotection of Shirelive. The new version of the article appears to be improved, though it at least resembles the old version. Can you take an objective look at it? I know you were involved in the DR. tedder (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

they are possibly notable, however, they do not have the references to prove it, and the article remains somewhat promotional. The information present shows 3rd party coverage, but of very borderline significance. The most significant verifiable story is a negative one, used as a ref in the article for the an item of data [21], but with the negative information not included in the actual article. Assuming it were added, there might be a case. But what really bothers me is that I cannot even verify the basic facts about membership. The Church's website is remarkably uninformative about even minimal specifics. (What is probably the key website, Some of the other articles linked to in List of the largest churches in Australia are in similar shape, almost equally unverifiable, and the membership data in that article are equally unverified for the most part. The basic website for them, http://megachurchwatch.org/ does not seem to be working, at least not today, though it does have many links in google. I would need to see this site to know what to do about the article in terms of our present rules--it may link to actual data..

Our present rules, though, for churches in general are extremely unsympathetic to articles about them. Other language Wikipedias seem to accept that they will be significant in their communities--we do not. It's our general problem on deciding about local coverage, where our rules rely on the more or less random presence of findable web sources. I sometimes think we need a peripheral Wikipedia layer for items meeting V, but N being based on general assumptions. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. The solid explanation you've given is very helpful, and it matches what tan said on the RFPP. tedder (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The last statement by DGG here is intriguing - a "semi-meta" level for verifiable articles that don't meet current notability standards. I don't think this particular article meets that (the V is too weak), and there would be inherent problems in keeping advert articles off, but interesting nonetheless. Only poked my head in here because Tedder commented on the RFUP thread that you had made a comment. Tan | 39 01:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the spam would be a problem , but there are two ways: first, V will require that all vague praise be sourced, so we can still deal with promotional language; we could have a rule on content--do we or do we not include schedules, phone no.s, how many named people etc.-- and some general rough standards for N that don't have to be argued article by article, simply say OK all asst professors, any college team membership, all local chapters of Notable organizations, all business streets, all bus stops, all and maybe some of the things we now do accept in Wikipedia-- I could see moving most high schools there, and subway stations; and topics we quarrel about such as baronets, & characters in games --It could raise, not lower, the standard of notability in the main Wikipedia!-It would at least be a good directory. There's not really anything out there that does it adequately, and people need that sort of information also. It could be a separate project, Wikidirectory--just as we moved out dicdefs, and quotations, and so on, except that the WMF really doesn't want any more splits, as there are already too many projects to keep track of. Could we do it within Wikipedia, perhaps as a namespace? DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Wikidirectory" was my first thought, but upon further thought it seems a bit nightmarish to moderate. Would it command the interest level that is required for the legions of vandal fighters, admins, etc that this project has? Probably not. Combined that a split is discouraged by WMF, this probably isn't the best route. A namespace strata, on the other hand, seems to work in my mind. I'm not quite sure how one would set it up... Tan | 39 17:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

general assumptions in:

Wait wait what?!

I've kinda been following this because I keep track of a few editors through their contribution history to see what's been done elsewhere, but I have to say something here because I really think you overstepped the line: I really don't see the issue over the username. We know who it is. That's a given: he's doing everything he did before short of citing the five pillars. That is not "personal information", that's very public and visible information anyone with common sense and some history with him. And to threaten to block someone over mentioning the name when the person involved is repeating almost exactly the same behavior is lunacy on your part. Granted it's TTN, a guy who for almost everyone here has been a pain in the butt at one time or another. But between this and the constant firebombs from yourself and to a greater extent Ikip is despicable. I'm sorry but I really think you need to take a step back and reconsider how you've been approaching that situation, and so does Ikip.

Please don't respond, I came to make a statement that hopefully will make you consider how it looks to someone on the fence, not to start a discussion on whether TTN deserves it to be socked to him or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have used no administrative tools here, nor do i intend to--I would leave it to the judgment of others--and I said just that. Anyone can & should warn someone about doing something that might require a block--it implies concern, not hostility. I have never used admin tools with this entire general field of things & never will, I have edited your post above--I have sent you an email concerned the factual basis involved here. I would gladly work with TTN or anyone if it were a matter of achieving a compromise. I've told him so repeatedly , and it is up to him how he responds to that. I express my opinion of comments at AfD as I see them and I will continue that. I try not to word them personally, though sometimes it's difficult to find a way to do so. If anyone else should think some AfDs or redirects is worth pursuing elsewhere it's their choice--I have made it very clear I will never start RfCs on user conduct or Arb Coms, and when others ask me about whether they should, I almost always advise them not to. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ELs

Hi. Thank you for the heads-up about external links. I'm not new at this I've made plenty of great articles but I'm still learning. I had never done the external linking thing for articles that weren't mine but I thought these were interesting. Didn't know About.com wasn't considered a good source either... Can you help me with the article I wrote on Matt Eventoff. I don't know why it is tagged with peacock terms, written like advertisement, and notability even. I created a category for Communications consultants and made an article for him. He's been quoted in Newsweek, E!, Baltimore Sun, ABC News. The references for these news media sources ARE all third party from the news sources themselves.... Thanks in advance! Yours, StewartNetAddict (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry about that tag--it went on automatically with the tag about it being written like a press release or advertisement, which does apply. The real problem is that there is current no evidence for notability according to our standards for WP:BIO or WP{:AUTHOR. His having written article that were published is almost never considered enough ;what is needed is some evidence that people have noticed his work and written about him. For an author of books, independent reviews usually are the way to show it. There is nothing of that sort in the article. If you can find it, the article might well stand. If not, it will surely be nominated for deletion and almost certainly deleted. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is ridiculous, honestly. They do write about him each time they quote him by mentioning why he's qualified to be an expert. How is it written like a press release/advertisement? I'm frustrated and confused right now. I love writing articles and patrolling vandalism and I do so meticulously. StewartNetAddict (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I give you the best advice I can based on what I think people will do here, based on my experience with what they have done in the past. I consider myself obliged to explain the rules as they are. This does not necessarily mean I agree with all of them. The subject is in my opinion not notable according to our guidelines, and is almost certainly going to be deleted if there are not better sources. The argument you make has consistently been rejected. You will have the opportunity to see what the community thinks, and see if you can convince them, when it gets nominated for deletion. I'm not making that decision. What they say is what will happen. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for those comments, they are really helpful. I'll incorporate them all as soon as I have time (bedtime over here now...) and I'll let you know when I'm done. --Crusio (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have incorporated all of your points, I think, except for #10, as I don't readily see how to do that. It may not even be necessary to explicitly specify this. Let me know what you think of this version. --Crusio (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense again

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shirelive church

you denyed my request for un protection Could you please give me some tips on how to get this article up to scratch.

Bunzyfunzy (talk) Bunzyfunzy (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

you first must a tthe very least find some reference for the basic factual data, and then t=you must find articles or other published sources talking about the church in a substantial way. Please see our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check

I see that user Ohconfucius signed your name on this pool, is this a genuine addition, or a mistake? Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He apparently added it on the basis that I had just said below on the page that I support the merger, using exactly those words, & he therefore assumed (correctly) that I did not see where the actual poll was, and he was simply moving my vote to the correct place. I'll add a comment to make it clear I'm OK with it. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at ArcAngel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Re: Why not an account?

Well, because the problem is people. People trying to hide WP:IDONTLIKEIT behind WP:N. When I got disgusted with it to the point that I decided I didn't want to make an account, AFD was still VFD, WP:N didn't exist yet, and the system was a COMPLETE mess instead of just a partial one. The final straw was discovering a deliberately organized group of users that had the sole purpose and intent of getting every single webcomic related article deleted. They went around and successfully deleted dozens of articles simply because they didn't like them, and got away with it because they had enough people to pack the votes. Many of those articles have been recreated since, but that's not the point. I've thought for a long time that the whole neutrality thing needed to apply not just to the article text but how the entire thing is run, or the neutrality is a sham. I've not yet seen any evidence that anything has changed on that front, and bias being part of human nature, it's not likely to. Otter's a fantastic example. Since I stumbled upon the whole webseries fiasco with him, it's become increasingly apparent he's exactly the kind of person that drove me away. His methods are even worse though, as he puts on airs that he's only following policy when his actions and selective quoting make it look otherwise. I hate to admit it, but he's become kind of a test case for me. Seeing how the whole situation with him falls out is going to be my barometer to see just how much things HAVE changed. So far...it's kinda up in the air. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think anyone is trying to get literally every web comic article deleted--there are probably some people who have a relatively skeptical attitude towards most of them. There's a problem with them--unless they have been referred to prominently in conventional media it's a hell of job finding sources to show they're notable. We probably should have a more flexible attitude towards blogs and the like, but it's proven very difficult to define what we should or should not accept as reliable. The way to get this changed is to argue both individual articles and the general question-- without of course getting into personal disputes. You will need to argue not that the opponents are wrong, but that what they are saying is wrong, and be careful to differentiate between the two, despite provocation. Though some editors have done it successfully with ip addresses, it usually helps having a user name, which is rightly or wrongly usually taken to indicate a certain amount of commitment. A good place to start is to see if you can find any relevant blogs on the general topic that we could consider notable enough for an article.

I do not see how we can have neutrality in discussing articles--what we can have is objectivity, and fairness. After all, they and you are advocating doing something, which is intrinsically not a neutral position. In a mass organization the only way to avoid vote packing is to get uninvolved editors to take an interest. One aids this by participating a little in other topics also, and learning what does and does not constitute canvassing. It does take patience. An excellent guide to working with Wikipedia policy is the relevant parts of The Missing Manual -- see the free online version of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton (also available in print) . DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They're not now. Back then they were, it was several years ago. Like I said, notability hadn't been codified as a policy yet, but there were already things being deleted as 'not notable' which at the time really meant 'I don't think it's notable' due to the lack of an objective policy. I first started editing on Wikipedia back sometime in 2005 so like I said, things have changed a bit. I just got so disgusted with the whole system and the attitude of the people involved in it that I decided that I didn't want any part of it. I have a tendency to get overly passionate about things sometimes; getting too involved in policy discussions would likely accomplish little else than to disgust me further. And honestly, I can't fix it. The things that bother me aren't the policies, and especially not the ideals, but the people. The ones that go around trying to twist the rules to shove their own agenda down everyone else's throat. When I got fed up and gave up, they were succeeding on a surprising level. Reading stuff in the meantime has suggested that some new policies were enacted and procedures changed to considerably mitigate it. I'm still waiting to see just how much, though. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The other book to read is How Wikipedia Works -- there's a free online version of How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print). I think it will encourage you. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

email

Hi DGG,

I have been trying to contact you. You said I should email. Am I missing something obvious? I got an account but I still cannot see how to email you from your userpage. My project should be of interest to you. My address is eprayner at gmail dot com. If you send me an email I will reply with details. Please delete this after you read it. Sincerely, Eric. Eprayner (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

what you need to do is go to you "my preference"s, and in the user profile section, the first one that opens, enter your email address, and then confirm it when we send you an email there; then go back to that page, and click the "enable email from other users" check box. then go to the link email this user that you will find on the left of my user page. Alternatively, give me some idea what it is about and I will email you. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Islamic philosophy

Why did you de-PROD that article? The article was full of complete OR. warrior4321 10:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me that we ought to have an article on the topic, and the article is not totally out of alignment with the main article on the subject. As I myself do not know much about this topic, I can not tell whether it is expressing generally accepted views that just need to be sourced exactly from standard books, or controversial views that needs other views represented also, or a minority viewpoint that needs to have the majority viewpoint added and emphasised, or perhaps something so totally wrong that it would be best to remove altogether. Only in the last case should it be deleted,rather than fixed. If you think it unfixable, such articles need to be dealt with at AfD--in my experience there are usually more than one opinion about things like that. And so the community must decide not you or me.

I do see that it used adjectives of praise and other opinions and judgments that should not be given on their own, without a specific source for them. Otherwise, I do not see that a collection of descriptions of the positions of different philosophers is OR. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • That IS Wikipedia policy, DGG, see WP:NOT. Those are not "my" criteria, that is consensus expressed in policy. I am trying to assume good faith here. Drawn Some (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)