The original author contested your PROD, so I've listed the article at AfD. I figured I should let you know. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 16:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The original author contested your PROD, so I've listed the article at AfD. I figured I should let you know. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 16:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
== Can you review ==
[[Rabbi Pinto]] Information seems to be getting ignored.
2 major recent features are longest stories ever written on Rabbi Pinto.
Rabbi's right hand man who owns property with the rabbis wife and has power of attorney for Pinto - rabbi’s translator, gatekeeper and conduit to the outside world in America is a longtime pornographer. The Rabbi is revered in the United States and Israel for his financial advice, especially in real estate, Suky’s own real estate business has faced a string of lawsuits, foreclosures and legal judgments. And while Pinto is an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, his adviser’s involvement in the pornography industry would seem to run counter to the tenets of modesty espoused by traditional Judaism. http://forward.com/articles/136819/#ixzz1J47HjPxA
Additionally no mention of $60 Million organization and 3 employees. Is noteable. Pls assist, http://www.forward.com/articles/136250/ 65.112.21.194 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:03, 9 April 2011
“
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.
Please post messages at the bottom of the page--I will reply on this page, so make sure you watch for it.
If you wish to tell me about an ongoing AfD or other discussion, please feel free to do so, but do not assume what I shall say regarding the issue. It is better to do so here than by e-mail, for others are likely to see it who may be interested also. Therefore, I consider nothing said to me here as canvassing, but be aware that some take a more restrictive view of this than I. If there are strong feelings involved, Wikipedia is the sort of place where any opponents may well use anything you say against you. My recommendation is to be Bold but not Reckless in asking me for advice, and I will do what I can to help if you are challenged for it.
If you choose to e-mail me, I shall keep all such e-mails in confidence, unless disclosing it is essential. But how I act on the issue will, as always, be at my own judgment. We must all support and protect free communication, both in public and in private.
I understand the parallels in the name, and it may have made sense at the time, but now it's confusing. I recognize you do not want to eliminate all mention, but what you've been advocating is hiding the information in the articles, instead of using it for lists and categories. I continue to find that I am arguing for the exact opposite of your position in most situation. Perhaps we can come to some understanding about the names of the two essays, and their abbreviations. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain
Hi DGG. I just read your self-portrait at Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Mentors and wonder if I could ask your opinion about this article. It may fail notability, and seems to fail RS, but I've never taken anything to AfD so would appreciate an expert opinion. I have tried unsuccessfully to engage the author on their talk page and the article's talk page, and asked at the medicine project. Somatosensory rehabilitation seems notable and supportable, but somatosensory rehabilitation of pain seems to derive from a couple of small primary studies from one group. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the references & citation indexes tomorrow. It's not as much what the concept is derived from that matters, but how widely it is used and cited. (And there are considerable difference between medical practice in different countries, which are not covered adequate by most US sources. If anyone seeing this can check in Excerpta Medica, it would be helpful--it's the most relevant database, but I do not have routine access to it.). DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laurence Ogilvie
Thanks for spelling out why the Nature review I found establishes notability. I could hardly believe it when I read it—one could scarcely ask for a clearer statement that he was considered a leading expert in his field, or a more reliable source than Nature. I spent far too long on fruitless web searches, and drew a blank when I looked for reviews of his book in a Google Scholar search for "diseases of vegetables" Ogilvie then as a last resort tried converting it to a Google Web search, which struck gold at the 10th item. Why it shows up on Google Web but not Google Scholar is a mystery to me. Do you have any idea? Maybe I should inform Google! Qwfp (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever succeeded in getting a statement from Google on what it includes in the various databases, nor do they make any notification at all when their practices change. I can well understand why they need to keep some aspect of the Google ranking confidential, in the hope of decreasing the illegitimate use of it by black hat spammers. I fail to see any conceivable motivation for doing likewise with G Scholar . (Many aspects of the coverage of G books are known, because of the legal agreements with respect to antitrust law and copyright). The best we can do is observe. I routinely check all 4: G , GS, GBooks, and G NewsArchive. DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm used to the ordering of search results differing, and the ordering being hard to comprehend at times, but I didn't expect Google Web to find an article in Nature that Google Scholar fails to find at all. Qwfp (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did some checking to see if it was an error or a pattern. It's a pattern, Google Scholar does not index the book reviews in Nature. What is even more surprising, is that it does not index the Scientific News or even the obituaries. It does not index book reviews generally, as far as I can tell. Some will get indexed in G Scholar when other articles there cite them, but book reviews are not cited very often. By experiment, I've found adding the keyword "review" is usually helpful, e.g. . [1] Since obits are a prime source for biography, it means G must be checked patiently every time for that also. The key word obit generally helps. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does kind sing, doesn't it. :) And even though the essay does deal with article creation, a newcomer's having an basic understanding of guideline and policy is the best first step to any editing... and for them, I wanted to have the bare basics in one easy to use page. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.22:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DGG. You see the situation...What should I do with this guy? Is there some form of higher level of appeal? How is it possible that a purely personal and highly questionable interpretation by an admin abusing his power can have an impact? Please, help, advice or act. Michoball (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
what you do now is wait for the deletion review to be concluded. Quite apart from Jayjg's failure to understand that arithmetic is not OR, the notability is borderline. The most likely positive outcome is a new AfD, and nobody can actually predict what will happen there. I will support the article to some extent, but I will be more interested if Jayjg makes the same sort of oppose, because I feel that such a view must be soundly refuted. If the article does not succeed, the way of proceeding is to await substantially more recognition of the work and then try again, but it would have to be really substantial. There is no appeal beyond the community, because there is no other authority. The community makes the decisions, and it sometimes makes them wrong. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Dear DGG,
I wanted to thank you for all of your help with my situation today. It meant and means so much to have come across so many kind individuals and I look forward to learning more about opportunities on this site and developing my wiki skills to the fullest!
almost:what you need at his point is some reviews of his books--they will make excellent 3rd party sources, & citation counts for his articles. . Any librarian can help you find them If you need help , let me know. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CardHub.com
Hi David - A couple of weeks ago you moved CardHub.com to my userspace >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarabas/CardHub.com so that I can work on it, improve it and hopefully restore it. I have worked hard on it and identified many respectable sources and references. Can you please take a look at it and let me know if you have any suggestions for further improvement. Furthermore, someone tagged the logo for deletion so I would appreciate if you could ensure that this does not happen >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Card_Hub_logo2.png -- Thanks a lot for your help! Sarabas (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the image, you must follow exactly the requirements stated on that page. There is no other way to do it.
With respect to the article, it is only the references in item 29 and 37 that go towards proving notability. But you cannot cite "numerous news stories" just by giving a like to a gnews search; you need to find specific ones with substantial coverage and that are not derived from press releases. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Why would you say for example that references 24,25,26 do not go towards notability when they prove that the companies studies are extensively been covered by the press? Can you please help me by making some specific edits? Thanks again! Sarabas (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being used as a source by a newspaper does not necessarily make you notable. Ref 26 should be sourced to the original NYT article, which is a much stronger source than the regional paper who copied it, but I notice they cited it as only one source among many. That the other two basedt heir article on him exclusively shows that either they recognize him as the expert, or that their articles were PR. If you can find a article using him as a source from the WSJ, it would help. Refs from BuysinessWire, ReuterPR, PRWeb, etc. are essentially worthless. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I updated the reference to the original NYT article and I also added a reference to Reuters that I found. Do you think that the page is in good shape in order to get republished? If not, I would really appreciate your more hands on help because honestly I have spent a lot of hours on this doing research and there is no question that this is a reputable small company - just look at all the press coverage they get. As you know reporters at the AP, NYT, WSJ, etc. check their facts and they do not publish anything. So if we can not find a way to get a reputable small company at Wikipedia then we have an issue. Thanks again! Sarabas (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some revisions., primarily to remove the promotional overuse of the site name, which should be mentioned only once or twice. Next step is removing some duplications. But you must not link to a Google search, but to results of the search. Am I correct that you have already linked to the key results? There is also some confusion between the company and the site. . Does the company exist only to run the site? Are the reports products of the site, or the company? DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your help. Your changes make a lot of sense. Here are the answers to your questions:
1) I linked to the Google search results to substantiate the claim that the site has received extensive press coverage. However, I have referenced a lot of specific news results so this reference might be redundant. Shall I remove it?
2) The company runs many sites - not just CardHub.com. They seem to also run FindHub.com and WalletBlog.com
3) The studies/reports are products of the site
Do you think that we are in good shape to restore the page? Thanks again for all the help! Sarabas (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few copyedits for format, and have moved it to mainspace. Remember, this does not guarantee that anyone will like it, just that it has a chance Any editor who chooses to do so can nominate it for regular deletiion. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a BLP is sourced solely by the subject's website, does it still count as being sourced for purposes of deciding whether or not to tag the article with {{BLP unsourced}}? I can't seem to find any firm guidelines on this. Some discussions I've seen say it must have a reliable source. Others say that it must simply have "a source" for the content. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. The purpose of BLP Unsourced is verification, not notability. If the website is one which would provide verification--for example, an official faculty or organization website, I would mark it or refimproveBLP and primary sources, but not BLP Unsourced. If the website is a personal one on facebook or the equivalent, then I would use BLP Unsourced. If the only source were a personal website of any sort at all, Id consider marking for notability, unless notability was obvious. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case, it was the subject's official website, but not Facebook. Is there a difference in terms of verifiability? There seem to be several views on this. I had tagged it for primary sources and notability and then after a search Prodded it. However, with this similar case, I did a search, saw she was notable, so just tagged it with primary sources. This probably needs to be made clearer in the guidelines for using {{BLP unsourced}} and for BLPPROD. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may need to be made clear, but I'm not sure we could get consensus on any one interpretation. But in any case, what you did was right from any perspective: you looked for references. That's the way to resolve most BLP PRODS, rather than arguing about whether or not one should be placed--in my experience, half can be easily referenced, one-quarter if one really works at it, and the other quarter could be deleted very easily as no evidence to support notability by an ordinary prod, or the even stronger reason: cannot verify. When I delete expired BLP Prods, I give both reasons. DGG ( talk )
An editor has added some sources and removed the prod on Claudia Pop, saying it should go to AfD if concerns still aren't met, which is probably right at this point. I'd seen those sources in my search but they didn't add up to passing either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:PROF. I'll wait a few days to see if anything else turns up to improve matters before taking to AfD. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have added them nonetheless, rather than make others repeat the search. It could then still have been prodded as "references do not show notability", & if it's removed. of course AfD decides. But any case for non-notability is made much stronger if one makes a good faith effort to source, and adds what is found. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I do add them, and I always search again and add before going to an AfD, e.g. [2]. But today I was pressed for time, and mea culpa, I'm getting mighty sick of non-notable opera singers/conductors/companies/etc. spamming their CVs to Wikipedia to "raise their profile", contributing nothing else the project, and then expecting other editors to save their article. It's a colossal waste of everybody's time at WikiProject Opera dealing with them, when they clearly won't pass the criteria and we have literally hundreds of red links for people with music encyclopedia entries. Sigh. Voceditenore (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty tired of it too, and ditto for visual artists, and authors, and entertainers in all sorts of media, not to mention businessmen and politicians and sportspeople and academics and so on. All of these (except some popular genres of entertainers) are also areas where we are sadly deficient in articles fort he notable people. At the beginning of BLP prod I searched every one of them and added what sources I found. Now I do not if I'm convinced they aren't worth the effort, in order to able to work on other things also, but I let other admins do the deletion because I personally will not delete without checking. But we also have to content with people who speedy or prod people in the more serious fields of human endeavor who are notable, presumably because they do not consider it likely that any such will be notable unless actually famous, and I am resolved not to let such a deletion pass without challenge. And before you ask, yes, I certainly trust your judgment in distinguishing. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that too. But at least time spent fixing victims of philistines is rewarding. I am dismayed at the hoops professors have to jump through, for example, when the criteria for other "professions" are so lax, or the mere presence of a couple of tabloid mentions means that they don't ever get a prod. Nevermind, onwards and upwards. ;-)Voceditenore (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The compromise I reached with myself is that I would support even borderline people in fields I did not think important if I could get others to support people in fields I do think important DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for butting in, Voceditenore, that sounds like something I wrote (Policy #17) six months ago. And that's why I believe BLPPROD in its present form is still too flawed, and is now ready for review - the 'Operissimo' syndrome. Kudpung (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thought has occurred to many people, and has been expressed for many years now. However, at present I think the limiting barrier is not acceptance of the articles by the consensus , but rather recruiting enough interested people to write the articles. And BLP Prod also needs either reforming or merging into the regular prod process. I do not however see the direct connection. Unsourceable articles about people will be removed, regardless of their field of work. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, one of my very first AfD "saves" was a prof, but there were apparently subtexts related to the article's creation. My tactic over the years has been to be quite rigorous about the notability guidelines for classical musicians, profs, etc. (even though it pains me) so that when I do argue for "keep", people tend to believe me. Re those "operissimo" articles, Kudpung, they were poorly sourced, but all of them would have passed the MUSICBIO criteria, although most of them were not people whom I'd personally prioritise for classical music/opera articles. So although annoying, they weren't really in the same league as the COI CV "editors" on my scale of annoying, and at least they increased coverage of people in an under-represented area. Voceditenore (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat08:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check Your Area of Study
Hello, I have updated the Project Page you are mentoring on with usernames for all the students in your Area of Study. Please send them a message introducing yourself and let them know you are there to help.
Hi, my name is Alexi (user: Delviniot). I'm a student at Indiana University, and I'm in a class on international development, which is participating in the public policy initiative. I am interested in working on an article on international aid or maybe the practice of monetizing food aid. Would you be interested in mentoring me as I write this article? Thank you! Delviniot (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The basic measurement for enWP is WorldCat, [3]. This gives you a US biased count of all US college and university libraries + about 1/2 of the US public libraries and a few US school libraries. + almost all canadian college & university libraries, some of their public libraries, most UK academic libraries, and most australian/NZ academic and some large public libraries, plus a few of the other major national libraries. The best general supplement to WorldCat is the Karlsruhe Virtual catalog, [4]/],good for all European academic and to some extent public libraries. For other countries, use the union catalogs at WP:Book sources. Most countries have good coverage of the college libraries, some have good coverage of the public libraries also. Some. like India, have nothing useful at all.
In searching, watch out for alternate forms of author names--titles are often better. The ISBN system is universal--if you have an ISBN , that;s the best search term. Be aware that older childrens books and popular fiction tend to be under-represeneteed, because most public libraries discard what isn't active--the count is therefore a minimum number. Be aware of alibris and Amazon, and other dealers, which list themselves for everything they are prepared to distribute.And all of the figures have to be used in connection with what counts as important in that area--you can do a comparison with a book you know is important;. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did you find the reviews for Charles Butler (author)? I tried Google Scholar and Google News, but didn't find any. I would much rather be able to do a more exhaustive search and add appropriate references than nominate things for deletion. I know I'm part of the "dark side" as an immediatist, but only because I believe the encyclopedia is better off without unsourced, non-notable, or questionable information. I'm not deleting for deletion's sake, and will definitely add sources rather than AfD things. Thus, I would be happy to learn of some other method of finding sources than I currently use. I'm watching here Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You used the first two steps correctly. (Google Scholar, unfortunately, has the current practice of not including most book reviews unless they had been referred to by something they do index. --I hope it changes)The third step is Worldcat. It includes book reviews that are published in the academic journals covered by JStor. Though you cannot read the full reviews without a Jstor subscription, you can find they are there,and often see the first page. (In this case it would not have worked). There are two actual indexes to book reviews, Book Review Digest, which is a part of Wilson Web and Book Review Index, part of Infotrac, with overlapping coverage. Both are available in most academic libraries, even small ones. Public library systems generally have them also, though they may be available only in the library building. There is no true free equivalent Beyond there, the specialized indexes to subjects often include reviews of books in their subject published in the journals they cover. Most libraries have a list of book review sources--I use Princeton's.
However, there is a free way around this, and it would have worked in this case. Amazon, in addition to its reader reviews and publisher's blurbs, neither of which are evidence of anything, also includes reviews from good 3rd party published reliable sources; they list them as Editorial Reviews In this case, for Timon's Tide, see their page. It gives the 3 most important. I would cite them as published in the source, and located in amazon. Amazon is reliable for the purpose. -- DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the details. I live in a non-English speaking country, so local libraries aren't an option. But I'll definitely look to Amazon the next time I find an unreferenced author to see if I can get at some reviews, and at least if I look at Worldcat I can see if reviews exist, even if I can't read them (I may get JStor access in the future, but not for at least a year). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"That's why Wikipedia has a reliability beyond that of any one contributor. That's why we work as a community." I wish I'd said that. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I was referring to the lack of notability of the subject matter. The subject of the article is trivia in nature, and the article itself is unsourced and very short. I don't know if a7 is the right criteria to use, but I do think the article is a waste of space on wikipedia. - Artoasis (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there is no applicable speedy criterion. Please read WP:CSD before doing speedy tagging. A7 applies only to people, group of people, individual animals, clubs, companies, and web content. Attempts to have a speedy criteria for clearly non-notable material of other types have all failed of consensus (except for A9. musical recordings ) -- see the voluminous archives at WT:CSD. There is a tag for speedy deletion for having no content, A3, but this had some content, however insignificant one might think it. Unsourced also has failed of being accepted as a speedy criterion. The speedy criteria are interpreted narrowly. In other cases, if one thinks the subject undoubtedly non-notable, the appropriate tags are WP:PROD if you think nobody would contest it or else WP:AFD. But in this particular case, it was originally a redirect to a good article. The course would have been to revert it back to the redirect. But if you do that,anyone can--purely as an editor , revert you. And in this particular case, I intend to work on the article, for I think it can be properly expanded and sourced, and have so indicated,. That does not prevent you changing it to the redirect, according to WP:BRD, and I could not blame you for it, but I would probably revert you--as an editor, not an administrator-- after which there would need to be a discussion.
there is certainly an enormous amount of material here that needs deletion--I delete a dozen or so each day myself. Tagging hopeless articles for deletion is a very helpful thing to do, if you keep in mind WP:Deletion policy, including WP:BEFORE,about alternatives to deletion. Even better, of course, is fixing them so they don't need deletion, but not everything can be fixed or is worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first time I tagged some article for deletion, so I'm not sure about which criterion I should use. Sorry if I cited the wrong criterion. I just don't think the subject matter is worthy enough, that's all. I understand if you think it's better to keep the article for further expansion. - Artoasis (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.the proper use of the deletion criteria is tricky--the rules are carefully adjusted to minimize errors, but that makes them quite complicated. Though this is one of the main things I do, I re-read the policy and guidelines every few months to make sure I do not drift from them. As for my view about this sort of article in general, see the next section, just below. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moby-Dick in popular culture, part II.
In response to your post on my talk page, I was not familiar with the page's history; I'm just a fan of the novel. Although I personally find a list of "notable" popular references insightful to the impact, legacy, and interpretation of a work such as Moby-Dick, I had not considered the appropriateness of an indiscriminate collection of information in an encyclopedic reference. I found the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Moby-Dick in popular culture very interesting and it has changed my view on what Wikipedia is supposed to be—something I hadn't really considered. So, thanks for both the post and the links. Jon Lighthall (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions about this type of material vary, and the decisions at AfD show little real consensus. My own opinion is that when notable cultural artifacts, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of their use is encyclopedic. I will therefore support almost every one of such articles as a matter of principle as core content for an encyclopedia with especially good coverage of popular culture, . There is an abundance of good print sources & some good web sources dealing with almost everything conceived of in Wikipedia, including popular culture. This should not be surprising: popular culture is a subject of academic study, and papers on the influence of X on y are the mainstay of academic writing in the humanities. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case with material such as this. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given.
To see the variety of uses, look at earlier versions of the article. Most are relevant, and they should be added. They are the material out of which our civilization is built. That some particularly notable elements of high art are of such great importance that even the art forms normally considered of widest popular appeal freely refer to them as familiar, and as lending depth to their own contemporary work, indicates our intellectual and artistic heritage.
I'm not saying the original article was good. There's more that should be said on all of it; the subject is capable of great expansion. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
The Afd on Emilia Carr is in its final stages. Perhaps if youf eel like it you can just as me leave a message to the closing admin on why it should be kept on the Afd page.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG. I have reviewed the arguments and opined there. Obviously, we disagree. I would be interested if you would care to explain why you disagree with my conclusion, which, briefly is as follows: There are facts about her case that are notable, but that does not give rise to the notability of biographical details, which are the focus of an article about a person. Bongomatic02:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about a person do not and should not focus around biographical details--that's tabloid writing, regardless of the nature of the person's notability They should focus on what the person ios notable for--in this case, the crime and the ensuing legal and moral issues. Since I apparently didn't make that clear to you the first two times I commented, it may not be clear to others, so I'll say it again. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I think there's still a gap in my understanding. People are arguing (possibly correctly) that the relative frequency / infrequency of women in Florida being sentenced to death and/or executed is notable. Nobody has argued that the specific facts of her case are relevant to the sociological or moral issues surrounding capital punishment or to whom it is assigned—nor do the sources support any conclusions along those lines being teased out of an article on her. My claim, then, is that the facts of her crime are related only tangentially to the notable issues that may surround her punishment—so the facts enumerated are not relevant to the ensuing moral / legal issues. Bongomatic02:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never really seen the point of debating about an ongoing AfD on a user talk page, when it's more helpful at the AfD DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really interested in the outcome of the AfD in this discussion. I'm interested in understanding your views and prefer not to stir the pot over there, where I've said my peace. Bongomatic04:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my view on the notability of murders and murderers
"murder is a mighty strong fact" — Samuel Johnson, 1768.
Despite what my favourite author says, murder/murderers these days are not necessarily considered sufficiently important to be notable at Wikipedia. Murders/murderers of multiple people are--when I came here 4 years ago, it was often successfully argued that ≥2 victims made them notable (I think that's about 10% of the total) --our standard seems to have risen, so I'd say it's now ≥3. Murdering in special conditions that excite human interest makes for notability-- murder in schools, or accompanied by torture, or committed in exceptional manners, or greatly disputed cases, or of (or by) those who are famous, and so on. (none of these apply here. )
Murderers who are executed are always notable, as I see it. That very few people actually are executed, even among murderers, makes the cases of particular interest & notability, and almost all the world considers such executions notable instances of barbarity. This is my fundamental position, but I no longer argue it , as the argument is very rarely accepted here. Executions under any special circumstances are however notable, even here, and the argument is accepted often enough that I will argue it.
This particular case does not quite fall into that category, as she has not yet been executed. But that she should even be sentenced to death is exceptional because of her status in one of the protected classes, and legally interesting, as there seem to be so few of the usually aggravating circumstances that the sentence appears a matter of particularly outrageous injustice, even as a sentence. A jury verdict like this with respect to an adult male in Florida and some other US states would not really be notable to the same extent, as it is relatively common. But a woman is normally given the benefit of the doubt , and here it seems she was rather the object of local prejudice. In southern states, local prejudice has a particularly ominous implication, as a continuation of lynching, that affects the way people look on it.
(I'll put off for the moment the question of whether the articles should generally be on the murder or the murderers) DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that DGG. I think we have fundamentally differing views as to the notable elements relating to this and similar cases.
"that she should even be sentenced to death is exceptional because of her status in one of the protected classes". This is a factual inaccuracy, I believe. She wasn't pregnant when sentenced to death (nor was she even pregnant when charged—the chronology is pretty clear that she gave birth in March and was arraigned in April).
"murderers who are executed are always notable". Why should there be de facto notability for this class of individuals rather than letting the guidelines apply?
"she should ... be sentenced to death is ... legally interesting". This leads to the conclusion that it ought to be covered, not that she ought to be covered, or even that the case be covered. The case is not legally interesting (it provides no legal authority on any proposition of law). As you point out, the jury verdict is interesting, but it is an interesting fact about the Florida criminal justice system or jury process generally, but not about the specifics of the case or individual.
You have gone to lengths to explain that you don't think that tabloid-style coverage of the subject is appropriate, but what else can there be in an article focused on her or the case, rather than putting the verdict in the context of capital punishment in Florida (or generally)? Bongomatic01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the Carr article, I think I suggested rewriting to change the emphasis at the AfD. We may not be that far apart on this particular article. That can often be the case in coming from different directions.
More generally, I just above argued why women should be considered a protected class for this purpose
I also explained why I think each executed criminal (at least in the 21st century) is notable. I recognize there may be an element of more judgment involved., but it's the moral judgment of most of the world, & whether it's my own is irrelevant. We can continue this on the talk p. of the essay i propose to write based on the above. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to tell you that the Afd has been closed as No Consensus. I feel it is a "victory" for the "Keepers".. It feels particularly good this time as the Afd discussion was at best really nasty. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way I can regard this AfD as a victory for anybody. The discussion was indeed nasty, to an extent that is rarely seen on AfD discussions in this subject area. I regret to say that people on each side of the issue contributed to this, yourself included. It is very unproductive to get into an extended dialog with someone who is being unpleasant; the only satisfactory course is to ignore them and concentrate on the issues--and having given and explained one's position, stop and let other continue the argument. True, the concerns in the article are upsetting, however, it is not Wikipedia but the appellate courts that will determine the fate of this woman—and the presence or absence of an article here is unlikely to affect their decision.
As for the presence of an article here, expect the article to be challenged again. The way to deal with it is to improve it in the ways suggested during the discussion. If improved enough, perhaps another AfD will not be initiated, and even if it is, the improved article will be easier to defend. And, should another AfD occur, I strongly advise you along with everyone to be more careful about what we all say to each other. It does not matter if others are unconstructive: all one can do is behave properly oneself.
In all emotional debates in the world where it is not a question of physical force, the best policy is to let your opponents show themselves in their true colors, without your interference. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
VRA page questions
Hello, I noticed you have re-written/edited/rearranged the Visual Resources Association page on Wikipedia. Please review your work on the third paragraph of the section called "History" as the text has been garbled and I'm not sure what was intended. The article was previously criticized for not having internal references and some of those have now disappeared during your editing. If you could include some references or replace the ones that were there, it would be helpful.
Hseneff (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at the article talk page. Please correct what you think you need to correct, but do not add excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the paragraph I'm struggling with:
"In 1972, visual resources curators within the MACAA group, led by Nancy DeLaurier of the University of Missouri, Kansas City, began to hold independent sessions during MACAA’s annual conferences along with workshops on aspects of visual resources maintenance. For the workshops, members developed several kit, a including information on slide room management, standards, and other practical concerns. profession."
I will try to find time to look back at the original author's writing to see if the error was from back then (though I'm sure I would have found it when I was first asked to look at the page) but I am stumped. Can you retrace your steps there and recreate the original passage if it was not wrong? This is an unexpected editing priority since our annual conference is next week and I hate to have the page so messed up.
Never mind-- I fixed it myself just now by replacing an older version of that paragraph. Also cleaned up some stray stuff. Not too much detail, just cleanup.
This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:
Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.
And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.
Hi David, I just wanted to say I am looking forward to having you help us work on our Wikipedia assignment. If there are any hints or advice you have, feel free to let me know. I will ask questions along the way too. I apologize for getting back to you now and have started to discuss on the article talk page.
Hi DGG, I have not the time this evening to check the other points raised in your comment but I'm afraid I know that your point about my BLPPROD on Tyrone Cummings is factually incorrect. If you examine the link to the NBA in the infobox (on this version) you will find the page does not exist, I checked it at the time.
Could you also supply me the name of the "article mistakenly marked as copyvio, when it was the outside site that copied Wikipedia" as I would appreciate a chance to check the facts there too? Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you were not wrong with that one, though not optimal, and I modified my comment at the RfA accordingly. The copyvio was Tata Power. It can sometimes be quite difficult figuring out whether Wikipedia is a copy of another page, or the other p. a copy of Wikipedia. However, in this case, the facebook p. clearly says it was copied from Wikipedia [6]; I suspect nonetheless that some of our article was copied from elsewhere, so I rewrote a good deal of it—it would have needed rewriting even if original. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements on Tata Power. I remember looking at the Facebook page and I agree I did not spend long enough reading it and focused on the description failing to take into account there was another section called "source" (probably unconsciously assuming it was an advert section), as soon as I saw the matches I just scanned it and moved on. It's a good lesson learned and I'll take more care to spot any potential attribution wording and workout the original source in similar situations where there are multiple Google matches. Fæ (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I think it would be best for you to move the hoax article into your userspace for the remainder of the RfA. Hoaxes, even to help clarify in RfAs, should not be kept in mainspace. Eagles24/7(C)00:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got a message about an hour ago from Professor Obar of the Media and Telecommunication Policy project and I think it is viewed best in full:
Can you please communicate to the online mentors that I DO NOT want them moving student material into the main space for them. This is a big problem. I have noticed that this has happened with a number of the projects already, for example, in the broadband.gov article and the media cross-ownership article. We need the students to be doing this on their own, of course so they can learn how to do it, and also so that I can grade what they've done. How am I supposed to follow student submissions if the data is associated with online mentors? A BIG PROBLEM ALREADY... please help me with this. None of you responded to my post about this on the discussion page. This is about to get out of hand. Jaobar (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
With that, of course, please only give instructions on how to move, don't do it for them. Please only let them know what to do and let them do it themselves. If they run into problems, provide further instructions. Do not it for them. This seems to be making a mess of Prof. Obar's grading system and I would like to avoid that. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo David, I created the above stub after someone was upset when I removed an unlinked entry for him from a dab page. I'm not an expert on the minutiae of WP:PROF: do you think this chap's article can survive? Before deciding to create the stub I found a book of essays published in honour of him after his retirement after 40 years teaching at Harvard, which seemed a sort of notability, and there's a lot of biographical stuff in the intro to that book. He's published quite a few books, but does he come up to the WP:PROF standard? (It always seems absurd to me that we demand of a footballer that they spend a few minutes on the pitch, once, in a professional game, but that an academic - much more likely to be cited and of interest in 5/10/50 years' time,even if obscure - has to jump much higher barriers. But that's the rich quirkiness of Wikipedia!) The criteria seem very much geared to today's academics - how do we detect equivalent notability for someone active in the 1950s to 1980s, before reading lists were online etc? Any thoughts? PamD (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a book published in his honour, it meets the standard of being recognized as an expert in his field. There's even a quote from p.1: "he became a major force...." And given that he published books, the criteria work well enough, for there are book reviews which should be found and added--I'lll add them . Did you check for other books? As in practice we judge notability primarily by reviews and citations, the PROF standards work well enough for the 20th century also. It's much harder earlier, when people did not publish as much and there are no citation indexes. But older scientists are more apt to get into biographical encyclopedias, if only because there were fewer of them.
And in fact I found his other books, and some reviews--using just what anyone can see in WorldCat, not the pay-barrier professional indexes. Actually, I did not add everything there was there, if you want to go back and add the rest of the reviews and the translations. and there's a later conference on his work in China. to add also. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on this. Glad that I was right in thinking the festschrift got him through the gate: I thought so, but couldn't match it to the rules in WP:PROF. I'd spotted many other books by him, but not added them, partly in the hope that the original editor who wanted him on a dab page as an unlinked entry would contribute some effort to enhancing the stub I'd created! (See User_talk:Shanghainese.ua#Benjamin_Schwarz) PamD (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only when I found the NYT obituary did I notice that I've been merrily mis-spelling him as "Schwarz" when he actually has a T in "Schwartz"! It seems surprising that he wasn't already in Wikipedia - when I found I'd got the spelling wrong I fully expected to find we'd constructed a duplicate article, but not so. Thanks again for your help. Now I need to try and find something about Bernard Schwarz (translater) (the German WP article is unsourced), and it would be nice to establish whether Bernard Schwarz (archaeologist) is really the same as any of the others. It all started with Category: Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup! PamD (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion debate query
So far, you're the only one other than the article's creator to !vote keep at this AFD. It's clear the consensus is strongly in favor of deletion and I don't see that changing. That, and the fact that the longer this is open, the more it's just providing an opportunity for the creator to flood the discussion, rearrange others' comments, spam completely unrelated Wikiprojects... So I'm considering a snow close as delete. Thoughts? postdlf (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I continue my opinion that it should be kept. You can't do a snow close in this situation. If you do, it only means a continuation at DRV, which has the opposite effect of letting the deletion finish. And as you seem to have formed an opinion before the discussion has ended. , it shouldn't be you who does the close. Possibly a neutral person will think my argument the stronger. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't asking you to change your !vote; I was seeing if you could recognize, even wanting this kept, that there was objectively no way that this would result in a keep result. Guess not. I actually don't have a !vote opinion either way myself, and so in that sense consider myself neutral about the article, but I do have an opinion as to how the AFD is going and how it is going to continue. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That it is likely to close as delete/keep is not enough reason for a snow close when there are arguments form an established ed. otherwise. The comments from the other supporter are not quite disruptive enough to be worth doing that , either., especially as I made a comment which should get him to stop. How can you know who might be puzzled by my curious continuing support and , however, decide to agree with it? DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? It's a verbatim copy of the article I linked. Not a single new word has been added. Please leave me a TB when you respond. OlYellerTalktome21:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The material is not in the present version of the parent article. [7] What it is, therefore, is an improperly done split. I am now fixing the split to show the attribution and restore the references. The merit of the split is another matter, and is for discussion on the article talk page. First let me fix it, and then you can debate as you please about restoring the earlier unsplit version. I have no particular opinion DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if it's split or not, personally. I cared that you would leave the article in the state that it was in with only a new editor to do the work in mainspace which is why I suggested userfying the article for the new user and letting me help them work on it. I'm glad that you're going back to do the work, though. Thank you. OlYellerTalktome
In any event a10 did not apply, whether to splits done properly or improperly, and I see no reason to userify material that had been in the parent article for quite some time now. The alternate course would have been to revert the split, & that might have been a better step in the first place than nominating it for deletion. I have now done the basic fix, and will go to the main article to put in the appropriate link to the removed section., and then do something with the external links, categories, etc. I also intend to give the new ed. some advice about less troublesome ways to get started here, but it takes a few minutes to do all this, & step 1 as I see it is to keep the article from being deleted while it's being worked on. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011
This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.
Where the courses are - A brief summary of how each of the 31 Public Policy Initiative courses are faring so far in the Spring 2011 term, as of 9-11 March. Feel free to add more detail.
Tracking students' articles - Make sure students' articles are tagged with {{WAP assignment}} on the talk pages, and have the newly improved Article Feedback Tool active.
Online Ambassadors logistics - If you don't have a Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt, now's your chance to get one! (Also, some other more mundane, but important, details.)
Steering committee preparing proposals - Look for discussions about two major proposals about the future ambassador program soon: the "Regional Ambassador" role, and elections for a new committee.
Hi, my article Homo sapiens morlandius has been deleted by you.
I commend your quick detection that this is a bad article. However I am a science teacher and have been having difficulty getting my year 10 class to understand how to use the internet to do research. They frequently print of articles they have not read, or use articles with only slightly relevant and over-technical language.
I wrote this article to set them a homework in order to catch them out, effectively to show them up i.e. as a joke. I would like the article restored for 24 hours, and I hope they learn from it.
Billiehenton (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)This is actually a great way to show them that Wikipedia, can, in fact, be used as a serious reference source, so long as they check the sources used in articles. A good approach would be, rather than just showing them "Stuff on the internet can be wrong," show them how to differentiate between what is good and what is bad on the internet (or specifically on Wikipedia). If you're interested in setting up a project, we actually have a group of editors who help coordinate with classroom teachers in reading, understanding, and even editing Wikipedia with their students. You can see information general information about currently running programs at Wikipedia:School and university projects. There's a list of people willing to help coordinate projects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination, and, if you have questions, you can post them on Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I can not restore it as an article. Wikipedia is a source of information used by many millions of people over the world. The possibilities of confusion are simply too great. And even before I deleted it, it had a tag suggesting deletion, because another editor had spotted it as a problem in 1h 29m after it had been submitted; I deleted it 5h later in checking the list of articles proposed for deletion. As Qwyrxian suggests, perhaps you can use this story to show them that, although Wikipedia may contain bad material for a while, and can therefore not be absolutely trusted, it is better than the wild internet, because the worst material does usually get removed quickly. At least it gets removed quickly if it sounds implausible -- we have been known to have trouble spotting plausible fake articles which have apparently good but obscure references that do not show what they are supposed to. (Looking at the last paragraph of the article, this one seemed to me like the common schoolboy game of putting in something ridiculous about one's school or one's town--we watch out for these quite carefully). In order that you have something concrete to show them, I've moved the material into your user space as User:Billiehenton/Homo sapiens morlandius; I shall delete it at the end of the week. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beautisol
Hello, You deleted the article I was writing for "Beautisol" based on G11 and A7. Can you please advise me which part was considered advertising so that I can remove/alter it? The later part I added indicated the significance of the article, however the article was deleted before that part was published. Thank you,Mac [User:SFBeautyGal|SFBeautyGal]] (talk • contribs) 20:12, 23 March 2011
Hi David. It's been some time so I just wanted to pop in and say hello. Hope all is going well with you. Still not active, but I like to check in with friends. StarM02:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try. Work is a little less insane. Missed the last one Pharos told me about but I plan to make the next one. Should get notificaitons. Wiped no bots off my user talk so we'll see. Was tired of cleaning up after Suggest a Bot StarM03:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider being my mentor?
Hello Mr. Goodman,
I am Arielle Parker, a student at Syracuse University, and I am currently in the class Transnational NGOS in World Affairs. As a class, we are participating in the program The TNGO Initiative and the U.S. Public Policy Wiki Project. I would be very grateful if you could be my mentor and allow me to come to you with questions (about Wikipedia editing) should the need arise.
certainly; but what topic specifically are you going to work on? If you haven't selected one yet, what have you been considering? DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am am planning on trying to flesh out the article about CARE (Relief Agency). If possible I would also like to contribute to the page about USAID; it seems to need a lot more structure though, admittedly, I have not delved into this with much detail. As of right now these are my primary focuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaparker (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you'll have enough to do with CARE. think about how you're going to proceed in general, and let me know. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another expert who finds us unwelcoming
I wonder if you can help with another case of a subject-matter expert who has come to give us the benefit of his knowledge but collided with Wikipedia's standards and processes and is finding us unwelcoming. User MaxWyss (talk·contribs) is an extremely experienced and well-qualified seismologist - see his user page. He has written a paper at User:MaxWyss/Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide which was (rather prematurely) nominated at MfD as an "essay". In reaction to that he went to WP:REFUND ("I'm sorry that I am one of the leading experts worldwide.") His paper looks good stuff, well worth publishing somewhere, but unfortunately is not an encyclopedia article - a classic example of WP:SYNTH and also rather against WP:NOTHOWTO. I have left a note on his talk page explaining this, and have sorted out some minor problems caused by a username change and an all-caps title; but it all still seems rather negative and I am at a loss for anything more positive to say about how to proceed with his draft. Maybe you can do better: even some words of welcome and sympathy from you would help. It would be a pity to lose him. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly gone out of my way to emphasize to him that we welcome subject-matter experts here, and that he has nothing to apologize for in being an expert, although they are required to observe our other rules (specifically, in his case, WP:OR). --Orange Mike | Talk15:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not getting at you, Mike, more at myself - having given my best advice on his talk page, it seemed to me that it was still negative, I cast about to think of a more positive angle, failed, and hoped DGG might be able to. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little different from than the usual. The article is not OR, but a summary that could easily become / encyclopedic with a little sourcing, instead of being written entirely out of his own knowledge. i do not consider it SYNTH, I doubt very much he goes beyond the published literature; I just consider it insufficiently sourced. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as was mentioned by HelloAnnyong at [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FuturisticCyberSpace/Archive] the material there is too old to work with. It is only practical to investigate recent actions, and it you can find any that continuation of this, you should list them making reference to these earlier ones. But I think we caught all of the bad edits and changed them appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Angela Ardolino deleted for copywright - proof!
Hello -
I sent an email to permissions-enwikimedia.org to verify that the information is not a copyright infringement as you have edited my article for deletion.
07:41, 8 March 2011 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "Angela Ardolino" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://dancingforcharity.com/angela_ardolino.html)
I haven't heard back so I read that wiki suggests to contact the editor directly to try and resolve the problem and undelete the page. The copy was written by Parenting with Angela and is owned by Angela Ardolino herself as is the image of her. DancingForCharity.com got the information from her not the other way around as you suggest. Please let me know the status of the article. thanks!
Please see the below letter for verification: From: melissa@handsacrossthebay.com [8]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:10 AM
To: NV
Subject: RE: URGENT ~ Dancing For Charity
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of Dancing for Charity and Hands Across the Bay, I'd like to confirm that the biography copy that is featured on: http://dancingforcharity.com/angela_ardolino.html is the property of Ms. Angela Ardolino, and was provided to us from Ms. Ardolino.
For additional questions, please e-mail: melissa@handsacrossthebay.com or call 727.572.9911 x 305.
This was deleted for two independent reasons. That it was copyvio was one of them. The other was thatt the article was entirely promotional, as in fct in generally the case when one copies from a web site. It is possible that an article could be written about her, as the founder of the Miami Childrens Theater (if there are 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. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your question about Genetic Alliance
Hello, not sure where to answer your question - so am putting it here.
You asked about Genetic Alliance relationship to Genetic Alliance UK. There is no relationship. Genetic Alliance is 25 years old October 30, 2011, and has used the name for 25 years. Genetic Alliance UK informed us in 2010 that they were going to use the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfterry (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG. You recently redirected the Provident Personal Credit (PPC) page to the Provident Financial (PF) page. I have looked into your comments and I completely understand the reasons why you did this. I have taken your comments on board regarding the need for references from 3rd party independent published reliable sources in the article and I have found numerous ones, including an article from Joseph Rowntree, that I am going to add into the content. You mentioned in your comments that PPC is a reasonable search term and I completely agree, is some respects it is probably a more popular search term than PF as PPC is the name that PF trade under and therefore the name that people associate with the service. If I included a number of 3rd party references and I undid the redirect would the article be OK or would it still be at risk of deletion? I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahjoanne123 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the PROD to the article. The A7 CSD tag was placed, because "Party Center Software" is actually the name of the company, as indicated on the talk page. Just to let you know that I'm not "totally" all dense. (Just a little bit, SHH!) Cind.amuse19:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
right. Sometimes it is hard to tell. I gave the author some advice for how to improve the article to focus on one or the other, and placed a PROD tag. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saw your removal of the speedy deletion for John Donaldson, and thought we might talk about that. Other than having fathered a daughter who married well, Donaldson appears to be one of literally thousands of ordinary college professors. Even the Danish Wind position was one that he awarded himself. What might be your guidance on this? Thanks!
t In this case I doubt the consensus will be to accept the notability as the father of Mary Elizabeth Donaldson, but whether he meets WP:PROF requires some more investigation DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG - I came across this article and noticed it had already been nominated and declined for speedy deletion. It seems to be a self-published book, and I'm not sure it will stand up on it's own, so it may be best merged into another article; I was wondering which one you had in mind?--Kateshortforbobtalk14:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you removed the prod on An Intimate Knowledge of the Night, I just wanted to inform you that I have opened a AfD for the article. Every search I could come up with found nothing to indicate notability; I don't believe that the author meets the special criteria carved out in WP:NBOOK #5: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Qwyrxian (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, please see this thread that Bulldog left on my talk page. Please examine his edit history; I provided important links in my response. Bulldog123 is clearly a single-purpose account and is now a galactic disruption on the project because he simply insists upon an outcome (purging Wikipedia of articles that classify and segregate humans into categories) when there is clearly no community consensus for that. Greg L (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the comment I left Greg L, it was only imploring him in a civil way to leave me alone (and in return, I would do the same) -- which any other editor would have agreed to... if Greg L's whole intent here wasn't shopping for a block. Bulldog12320:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that when some editors have pointed out disruption by Bull, he has sought to bargain with them -- he won't interact with them if they desist in pointing out his disruption. Another approach he has used to intimidate an editor commenting at a discussion is to threaten the editor. Neither of these approaches seem to be the ideal ones, IMHO. There is more on this subject on Bearian's talkpage. But -- in short -- there appears to be a clear history of disruption on the part of Bull, including hounding and mis-statements on his part and other disruptive editing. This isn't in the interest of the project, as a number of sysops and editors have pointed out.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there are a number of people around here whom it is not possible to intimidate. But I I learned very early on in my service as an admin never to block my opponents on an issue. That does not prevent me from giving an opinion if someone else wants to do it. I ethically certainly could take the matter to an/i, and ask someone else to, but I never even do that. If someone else should, they will, and I can and shall support them. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David, take a look at the bottom message on my talk page. This guy needs some supervision from an admin, if not an outright block, Check the associated AfD for the back story. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stay away from this issue for a while. I have explained this as best as I can to both of the other adverse parties, both of whom appear to have an emotional attachment to this article which would be worthy of a Saturday Night Live sketch. Time to let admins and others explain to them what I apparently can't. I'd go get a beer now, 'cept I don't drink. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, you made a rather unfortunate typo in your endorsement of WereSpielChequers' comment. It's not very important, but I thought perhaps you may like to fix it. Danger (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I recently started an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LST-766 , where the main arguments to keep are based on the conventions of WikiProject MILHIST. From watching AfD and DRV, I had gotten the impression that policies and guidelines trump the conventions of a WikiProject, but nobody at the AfD has agreed with that specific statement. I figured I'd ask the opinion of someone more experienced than myself, and with differing opinions, for feedback. Regards, RadManCF☢open frequency18:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
there is no fixed rule: the community decides. There are good reasons for special guideline interpretations in specific fields, and the projects are generally the most qualified to get them right. On the other hand, everything they do is only valid if the community as a whole accepts it, just as anything you or I might do is only valid if the community accepts it. (I'll take a look at this specific one)
Just FYI that DarlieB reverted to her preferred version at TMWWBQ today and left a long series of comments on the talk page. DanielKlotz has undone the edit, but I wanted to make sure you knew about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a statement on the talk page there which explains why I do not think I should be involved further; my feelings about one of the participants is too intense. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of the admins who responded to my request for a deletion review was that the page User_talk:Inyon011/International_Osteoporosis_Foundation was not spam and should be unprotected. But I’m not sure what happens now – how do I actually get the page back to the mainspace? I imagine this is something an admin has to do – are you able to do this? Thank you for you advice, which is really appreciated. Regards, Inyon011—Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
David: Back when you wrote DGG's suggestions for what journal articles should contain. Your essay is mentioned on the WikiProject Academic Journals writing guide. With this background, I am wondering about WP articles that contain "Significant articles" section -- like this one:California_Law_Review. The authors of the significant articles do not like notable people and the articles written do not seem to have any impact on notable court cases. Is this an example of what an academic journal article should not contain. I'm looking for guidance in this regard. Thanks so much. --S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
such sections should use an objective criterion. The one I prefer is very simple: most cited. (In law, I'd include citations from both journals and court decisions). You may be interested in a very recent paper: Donovan, James M. and Watson, Carol A. "Citation Advantage of Open Access Legal Scholarship" Univ. of Georgia School of Law Research Papers Series, no. 11-07, published March, 2011, [10] Other criteria are possible: papers that win awards, papers by famous authors. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rabbi Pinto Information seems to be getting ignored.
2 major recent features are longest stories ever written on Rabbi Pinto.
Rabbi's right hand man who owns property with the rabbis wife and has power of attorney for Pinto - rabbi’s translator, gatekeeper and conduit to the outside world in America is a longtime pornographer. The Rabbi is revered in the United States and Israel for his financial advice, especially in real estate, Suky’s own real estate business has faced a string of lawsuits, foreclosures and legal judgments. And while Pinto is an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, his adviser’s involvement in the pornography industry would seem to run counter to the tenets of modesty espoused by traditional Judaism. http://forward.com/articles/136819/#ixzz1J47HjPxA
Additionally no mention of $60 Million organization and 3 employees. Is noteable. Pls assist, http://www.forward.com/articles/136250/ 65.112.21.194 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
