User talk:DGG

Current time: 02:30,   August   19   (UTC)

     ARCHIVES

Reminders
Topical Archives:
BLP (Biographies of Living People)
Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , Sourcing,
In Popular Culture, Fiction, Bilateral relations.
Academic things & people, Journals, Books & other publications,
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
2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec

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)

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)? ^Bongo_matic 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

CKD Galbraith

Could you please restore the CKD Galbraith article. While I appreciate that you're trying to keep the article standards ups, I think it was not given sufficient time to develop. CKD Galbraith is a national firm in Scotland that seemingly has wide reach and should have an article in Wikipedia. The deletion article says:

Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.

Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates. Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets, and should consider notifying the page creator and any major contributors.

Thank you. Hackbinary (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion in one place, and refrain from forum shopping -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Public Broadcasting Act of 1967

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.

Mike32389 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

Thank you so much for your consideration,

--Aaparker (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Arielle Parker

International Relations Class of 2012

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)

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)

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)

Hi DGG, My article is going well and I am finally adding my contributions. I want to add a picture of the CARE International logo to the article, but there isn't one in the WikiCommons and I don't know how to add one. Could you please tell me what I should do?

The other thing I'd like to know is if it is possible to change the title of an article because I think it makes more sense for it to be renamed either CARE International, or CARE (Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere). Personally, I don't think that "relief agency" works very well. Would you please advice me on what I can do there too please?

Thank you so much for your help! --Aaparker (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 | Talk 15:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Provident Personal Credit redirect

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)

Request to mentor a small group of students

Hi David! I'm trying to find mentors for each of the groups in the Energy Economics and Policy course. Would you be willing to mentor this group? If so, please sign up on the course page and introduce yourself to the students in the group. If not, let me know so I can find someone else. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

yes, I signed up. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you !voted in one Econ hist AfD...

I'm curious how far your inclusionism goes at Economic history of the Christians and Economic history of the Muslims. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What journal articles should NOT contain?

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)

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, [1] Other criteria are possible: papers that win awards, papers by famous authors. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so very much!--S. Rich (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ágnes Heller

David: There is a very controversial, current paragraph in the Ágnes Heller entry. The prior version was extremely biassed toward the right wing view, portraying Heller as being guilty of fraud. In reality, she is only being accused of fraud (by the right-wing government, of which she is a severe critic). According to the left-liberal and international press, Heller is the target of a systematic harassment campaign and is not guilty of anything. Please see the paragraphs in question (they are the latest ones with the do/undo changes. Many thanks, Stevan Stevan Harnad 13:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

yes, the wording does not seem to reflect the balance of sources. I've done a few copyedits and removed some irrelevant material. I've asked for some references, and will do some editing accordingly, if references are not very promptly forthcoming. It would be very useful if you could guide me to some Hungarian publications in support of the view she is being persecuted. The international statements are enough of a source, but this would help for balance. But I strongly urge you not to add material which is apparently satirical--I at first took it for genuine unsourced negative comments. (In any case, I have removed it. Please, either let me handle it, or take it to the BLP noticeboard WP:BLPN if you decide you are not satisfied with what I shall be doing. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no worries at all about your handling it fairly and competently. I was just worried that it was not getting any editorial attention for weeks despite the obvious absurdities (such as implying that using grant funds to cover conference travel and lodging costs, or to do a new translation of Plato were some sort of evidence of misdeeds! (That's why I finally inserted the parenthetical mention of teleportation and YMCA: To make it make the absurdity of the original transparent. (For Hungarian publications in support of the view that Professor Heller is being persecuted, they are linked daily in the Facebook Forum I linked "End the smear campaign against the philosophers": It appears in the Hungarian left-liberal press. But because the left-liberal press has been weakened in Hungary (and will be weakened further by the new press laws and Constitution), there are far more articles smearing the philosophers (in the Government-supported right-wing press) that there are anti-smear articles in the left-wing press. But everything there (and abroad) is is noted in "End the smear campaign against the philosophers" The ones published in Hungary are in Hungarian, of course. If you think it would help, I could ask one of the people monitoring the press to say which are the most important few articles that have appeared recently criticizing the smear campaign against Agnes Heller and the other philosophers. Stevan Harnad 22:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

Although Harnad's remarks seem excessively satirical, trivializing, they quite correctly describe the general opinion strongly pushed by the Hungarian government, the right wing media (Magyar Nemzet, Magyar Hirlap, HirTV, etc) and miriads of anonymous commenters---that it is an abuse of the regulations to spend research grants on travel, hotel bills, book publications, hardware and software, essentially anything. As we all know, in times of hardship, it is useful to have an enemy, somebody that can be pointed to, as the guy who spends millions when our pension (say) is worth less and less. The whole affair is reminiscent of the Stalinist period of Hungary in that the accusations are not well stated, are unclear, and an air of intimidation is created so that everyone should see where does any criticism of the Orban government lead.Nedudgi (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As you say, it was similar enough that it at first took me in also. I am not particularly familiar with the particular situation in Hungary, but similar patterns are seen elsewhere, & the US is not immune. Some such attacks are for political purposes purely, show show a general populist distrust for intellectuals, seen across the political spectrum, and some simply show a misunderstanding of the academic world. The US style, I think, relies less of vagueness but on overemphasis on specific but unrepresentative examples.Though apparently simple0minded, it is in fact extremely difficult to argue against, because people will believe strongly in the first apparently understandable fact they are shown. The enWP is best written in very plain language, keeping in mind that a very large percentage of our users and contributors are not native speakers. Rhetorical device tend to work neither in articles nor in argument. We need to make a very strong effort to keep the use of representative examples balanced, which is why NPOV can be very difficult to achieve. It is very possible by small moves over time to affect the balance of an article, and very hard sometimes to argue against the relatively trivial elementary changes.

But as for Stephan's question to me about what would help. Since we cannot use Facebook as a source for, especially for the biographies of living people, even when what happens to be posted on Facebook for convenience is in fact a good summary, it would help to have a few additional newspaper or magazine sources in Hungarian--and in countries outside the US. It would also help to have articles on the other people being attacked, if enough material can be found to show their notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

David, please note that the Stevan Harnad page is being vandalized by "Tüzes fal" ("Firewall") under the pretext of removing "excessive amount of external links", but in reality "Tüzes fal" is simply trying to remove the link to the controversy. See his edit page: He is a one-issue editor, and what he does is remove passages that are unflattering to or refute Hungarian right-wing allegations. (My guess is also that "Tüzes fal" might be one -- or all -- of the anonymous posters to the ScienceInsider Forum to which he removed the link. He removed the other links merely to camouflage his intervention. Stevan Harnad 22:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

• Stevan, the external link section is not the place to list what you consider your significant postings. There were indeed excessive external links, and I had meant to remove them myself; I apologize for not having gotten to them, for it might have been better had I been the one to do it. I restored the other editor's edit, adding back one link which is appropriate but had not been described clearly. Regardless of his motivation, he did not just remove the one link to your posting on Harel ((Hungary)); the edit was not vandalism. I shall, of course, check what else he has been doing. Looking at the bio, there are additionally too many see also's--that's not the way to list the fields of scientific accomplishment--they should be described in the text with a reference to a key article and linked there. I'll make the change tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks David, I have full confidence in all your edits, and your general Wikipedia expertise and judgement. Wikipedia is very lucky to have you and your experience both as a librarian and biologist. Stevan Harnad 12:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

About: your eloquent summary of what does and does not improves this project

Hi DGG, or if I may be so bold, David,
You wrote at WP:AN/I Archive691:

There is more than one valid way of working here. Some people prefer to create only high quality articles, even though they may do very few of them. Some prefer to create many verifiable articles of clear notability even though they may not be of initially high quality. As this is a communal project, I think every individual person is fully entitled to do whichever they prefer, and the thing to do about people who prefer otherwise than oneself is to let them work their way, while you work yours. The only choice which is not productive is to argue about how to do it, rather than going ahead in the way that one finds suitable.

Many editors include a statement about their attitudes to editing on their userpages. I am not one of them, that is until I came across what you wrote. I would really like to include this on my userpage. While I can add anything at all I like to my userpage subject to WP:USERPAGE, I nevertheless ask for your permission to add the quote. OK with you? I'm fine if you decline this.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Imersion has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Great comment in the Ideal .. DRV. Hope you like cupcakes! I was goign o say you are a courageous guy, but then I read your position pape r on POV. Very thoughtful!†

Sandusky (automobile company)

While I normally appreciate your CSD work, I have to bring up a few points with Sandusky (automobile company), specifically the edit summary you used.

• "probably notable" - notability != significance. You know this. If you meant "probably significant", that's not the same as "actually significant". If you meant "probably notable" you should have some, y'know, sources, which it might be helpful to provide to Fluffernutter.
• "First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion" - Fluffernutter is an experienced contributor - she doesn't necessarily need stuff like this thrown at her.
• "See WP:BEFORE" - again, she doesn't need this thrown at her, but more importantly, it's optional. If you're trying to give advice, fair enough; if you're using it as part of your rationale, you should probably take a look at the guideline/policy pages on the subject.

As said, I appreciate the good work you do. But if you were basing it on "I think", notability is not the test. If you were basing it on "I have found some evidence that it is", you should have provided the sources. A failure to follow optional due dilligence guidelines does not exempt somebody seeking for others to follow them from doing so himself Ironholds (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

One this was proposed as a speedy deletion. Speedy is for unquestionably necessary deletions. Any doubt anyone (except of course the contributor) may have about the appropriateness of a speedy deletion is cause to remove the speedy, though it should be explained, if only to guide further action. (But the removal is valid even if not explained properly or at all). I remove speedy tags based on thinking, guessing, or whatever. What I do not do on the basis of mere guessing, is delete (or undelete, or any other admin action). Removing a tag is not an admin action: anyone may do it. I would not have closed "keep" at an AfD on a reason such as I gave here. Of my declined speedies, probably one-third end up deleted. That's perfectly reasonable--speedy is not the only deletion process. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Two any of the pioneer automobile manufacturers are possibly notable, and that's enough reason to look further. Not necessarily to keep, but certainly to look further. If it needs looking further, it's not a speedy.

Three WP:BEFORE is just a restatement and amplification of WP:Deletion Policy, which says unambiguously that deletion is the last resort. It's a suggestion of things to try, not all of which will be appropriate in every case.

Four It is relatively difficult to find wordings to separate advice from requirement in the space of an edit summary. I shall try to reword this one a little, since it's a message I frequently use. You're correct that I probably could be clearer.

Five I explain what I'm doing, even to experienced contributors. Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is an essay that, by and large, I disagree with. I treat all editors equally, as I want to be treated. (And the edit summary is furthermore intended as information for whoever might look.) If I think someone has placed a tag in a way that is demonstrably very wrong, I leave them a personal message, adapted to the person. This was not that sort of a blunder, & there was no need for instruction or remonstrance. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

DGG, the problem I see here now is that you removed the speedy tag but left the article in a state where it still very clearly doesn't assert any importance. I mean, I find A7 extremely vague, and very rarely dare use it for that reason. And it's clear even to me that this article doesn't assert any importance. If there is importance to be asserted, which there well may be, was the correct action on your part not to assert it, rather than remove a valid tag and leave the article in a state where, unless someone is inside your head to see what importance you know of, it has no validity as an article according to our inclusion guidelines? I mean, a NPPer could come across it tomorrow, see that it asserts no importance, and tag it again. Would you then re-remove the tag, again asserting that it's "probably" important? How long would the article need to stay in a doesn't-meet-inclusion-criteria state before you would allow it to be deleted? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A Deleting a speedy is optional, except for things like copyvio and BLP violation. . ANYONE can stop the process. Speedy and Prod are processes deliberately designed so that any one person can object. Otherwise, they're too dangerous. That's why I don't do single handed deletions unless its something really harmful and completely obvious (or, I must admit, if I get really impatient.)

B In any case, I consider any historic company at the development of an industry notable. I consider saying so and having evidence for it not just an assertion of notability , but a proof of it.

C If a NPPatroller or anyone replaced or retagged any removed speedy for the same reason, I'd remove that tag and warn them, because it isn't permitted, according to WP:CSD. If an admin were to deliberately do it, it's close to wheel-warning. The recourse is AfD .

D One of the good things here is how looking at any one article can lead to a long bypass. I've spent some amusing hours finding the various sources for old automobile advertisements & resolving some inconsistencies. I haven't finished, but a good magazine chose one of their cars to be in the 50 they listed in 1904. I have been working on the article. I just didn't do it immediately, DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• "In any case, I consider any historic company at the development of an industry notable. I consider saying so and having evidence for it not just an assertion of notability , but a proof of it." - three points:

1. What is this evidence of notability in the article as it was when tagged?
2. What allows what you "consider" to constitute notability, without reference to any policy or guideline, to be the rule?
3. Can you explain how a company which existed for two years, the article on which was referenced to a single source of dubious reliability, can be considered to have evidence of notability with relation to our actual guidelines? Ironholds (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't you get it? You don't need any reason to remove a CSD or PROD nomination. Any editor's own idiosyncratic notions are enough. If you think the topic is not notable, there is a way to test that where each editor's view is counted—it's called AfD. It so happens that DGG's views here are probably within the mainstream, but who cares? If you don't like the article, use the process and make the editors who feel it should be kept justify their views—something they are not obliged to do when removing PROD or CSD templates . ^Bongo_matic 15:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ironholds (and I'm quite sure I don't in this case, because he knows what he's doing far more than I do), but I guess I (as someone who is not a regular NPPer or CSD tagger - I kind of stumbled onto this article in the course of my normal non-deletion-related editing) figured that because CSD had strict criteria, an article that met the criteria persistently (as opposed to while under construction, etc) would be deleted. I don't think I was aware that CSD tags function like PRODs and can be removed for any reason or no reason. So, to make sure that I understand this now, someone could equally well remove a CSD tag on a gibberish article, or any other CSD-criterion-meeting article, even if they made no improvements, and that article would then have to go through AfD to be deleted? That's how the process works? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

All Wikipedia actions are only valid if they are performed in good faith. A removal of a CSD tag to be disruptive could be reverted, but sometimes even these are taken to AfD for the sake of getting a definitive judgment, as the community judgment is always stronger than that of any individual administrator, and serves better to prevent further disruption. However, if the tag was regard to unsourced negative BLP or libel or vandalism or undoubted copyvio, it will almost certainly be directly reverted, but such material is deleted immediately even if not tagged. I've seen AfD tags as nonsense incorrectly placed on articles, that are not nonsense, but if it were true gibberish and there were no prior version, it might well simply be deleted also. I am not aware that anyone in good faith has ever truly removed a CSD tag placed for undoubted nonsense. (Some tagging for hoaxes has been disputed from time to time.) A person doing disruptive tagging or de-tagging for deletion processes (or anything else) on a continuing basis would probably find their actions being discussed at WP:AN/I, and if continued after a warning would probably lead to a block. Several such instances of possibly disruptive nature have been discussed there in recent months, and resolved in various ways, but there has often been no clear consensus on what is disruptive, with mass inappropriate tagging or de-tagging more likely to be considered a problem.

CSD has strict criteria, yes, but any criterion needs judgement and interpretation, and the CSD criteria being strict means that they are interpreted narrowly.

If you consider my detagging disruptive, discuss it there, but I think the evidence that I was able to improve the article, as people there know that I rather frequently do, will demonstrate my good faith. If you want to change the rules, discuss it at WT:CSD, but I think my improvement, and the frequent improvements many editors have been able to make on similarly weak articles, will show why it and similar articles should not be deleted, and why any good faith objection is sufficient. If you question just this article, use AfD. AfD is unpredictable, but I estimate there's only a 30% chance it will be deleted there even if not further improved. Or perhaps you will think it now strong enough. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DGG, I don't intend to say that your detagging was disruptive in the slightest; I'm sorry if it comes across that way. I'm just trying to understand why the way I thought the process worked is not actually the way the process works. Yeah, it seems kind of counterintuitive to me, but if that's the way things work, that's the way things work. I'm still a little skeptical that the company will turn out to pass notability requirements, but I'm perfectly willing to wait and see what you turn up in your expansion before I make that call. My main issue was with the removal of the tag with no concurrent work on the article, which objection is now moot, since you are working on it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

i'm seeing an increased use of the speedy, when references "are not good enough". while the intent may not be to circumvent consensus AfD process, this is the effect. badgering users who take down speedy's is bitey. there seems to be a lot of restatement of positions, and motivation through deletion, rather than working with good faith editors. we have a list here of hundreds of defunct auto manufacturers, not much better than this one: will we now speedy or mass delete them all? Slowking4 (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I object to my questions here being characterized as "badgering" or "bitey," Slowking. DGG took an action that I didn't understand, I asked him to explain it, his explanation raised another question in my mind, and I asked that. Is it now considered rude to try to ask for explanation when something happens that I don't understand? I've made no attacks on anyone, I've not claimed that DGG's actions were unconstructive, and I've not implied that anyone was operating in bad faith. I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do not regard any of the questions asked me as improper, and I appreciate Fluffernutter's comments. I like having an opportunity to explain how I see things, and if people doesn't agree, it's good to try to narrow down the area of disagreement. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

i apologize if my comments were taken as bitey, i'm less interested in the present case than the trend: article improvement via speedy. Slowking4 (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A7 Speedies for referencing problems can & should be brought to Deletion Review, but there is not all that much point in doing so unless there is some chance of making an article. The only times a speedy for referencing problems might be valid is negative BLP and re-creation of an afd'd article if referencing problems were the reason for deletion at AfD. Mass AfD nominations are strongly deprecated. The way to go is to test the waters with one or two of the weakest articles. But the real thing that needs doing is finding good sources for this material, There must be books, and the advertisement and articles in magazines of the period are increasingly available at Hathi Trust and Google Books. For everything in the US before 1920, these PD sources are really a wonderful way of increasing both the breadth and depth of content here. If people spent as much time on improvement they spend on deletion, we'd get somewhere. For one thing, we'd be able to concentrate of quickly getting rid of the real junk.We must have a few thousand articles , some in here quite a while, that could qualify for speedy. The other thing that needs doing is more people monitoring speedy and prod--it is not necessary to be an admin to remove a tag, and, in fact, it's excellent preparation for adminship. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

List of most popular missing articles

Can you comment here. I've proposed a list of say 1000 of the most popular searched for articles in the search engine but which are without articles.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 16:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at CFD:Science writing

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 1#Category:Science writing. Fayenatic (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Category:American novels by century

There is a case to answer that Category:American novels by century is over-categorization. It seems to have been set up last year following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Archive 15#Category:American novels because of the need to diffuse a large category. You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature#Categories by century, country and genre. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Written

• Thanks for the strong and well written argument on Kovesdy discussion. --S.Buntout123 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

An apple pie for you!

Happy 4th of July to our fave scholar! FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Books books books

Hello DGG, evil deletionist ogre here. I've just noticed this list of publications. The preamble is so peacocky that it's unintentionally amusing. I can deal with it in a twinkling, but no harm will be done if I leave it for another 48 hours. What I'm wondering about is not the preamble but the table that follows it. Its content seems factual and I suppose is verifiable, but even before I start to investigate I know that it's incomplete, simply because I have a copy of at least one Steidl/ICP book that doesn't appear in it. I have no appetite for the work needed to update the table and keep it updated. Neither can I see that such work is more merited here than it would be for any number of other publishers, publishing collaborations, or "imprints". And yet this arguably analogous though "standalone" list hasn't been trotted off to AfD. Any ideas? -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

they are the major publisher in their field. But we generally do not have such lists; Perhaps we should add articles for the notable books and make this a category. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sensible words, as always. Yes, we should indeed add articles for notable books, but notable photobooks rarely get paragraphs within articles here, let alone their own articles. (For that matter, even those that are in print often go without any comment at Amazon.com, the average quality of whose comments surprises me ... and thereupon saddens me: all that unpaid effort going to help a commercial monopolist whose packaging policies clearly imply a hatred of books. But I digress.) Ah well, here's my first bash at transforming this from a puff piece to a decent article. -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

books

DGG, you were involved in a discussion on bibliography here a long time ago, and you might be interested in this AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about ballroom dancing. I look forward to reading your comments. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dazzpedian

Hello David, I am new to the world of contributing to Wikipedia but I do have an educational/professional interest in article sourcing and, in particular plagiarism. If you would be interested in serving as a mentor please let me know! Thanks, Dazzpedian (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! As you can see, I'm a little to busy to give general assistance, but I'n always glad to help with specific problems. So what in particular do you want to ask? DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind welcome! I am new to the Wikipedia way of doing things and found your take on issues to be instructive. I appreciate that you are busy at the moment but, if it's all right, I might come back to you with specific questions. Thanks again. Dazzpedian (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You get a lot of messages!

Just read your last message (page archived), haven't logged on for a few weeks, concede that I may have been harsh in last message (but not over the top), your reaction was nice and calm. Otherwise, if you followed every newby like you did me, you'd never have time in your day for anything else, so I still think it was a bit stalky, even if not intended that way! Also retract my retraction in the earlier message, you are probably an alright admin, but haven't got time to check.Borgmcklorg (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion, you might try replying or sending messages to other people on their own talk pages, certainly looks like you use your own strategy (doing everything on your own one) to, well, you know what you are trying to do. Sure makes the page look busy!Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly response. Yes, I follow many people. Probably too many, but my main present activity here is to help newbies who are having problems. The reason I do it on this p. is so I don't have to check too many other pages--like most active admins, my watchlist is too long to be useful.Instead I use this p. to keep track, plus a private checklist. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, see the point.Borgmcklorg (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply requested

I left a response and a query here. BTW, thanks for joining the conversation. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Further reading

I recently posted to Wikipedia talk:Further reading to agree with something you said. I'm not sure if you have that page watchlisted, so I'm dropping off a note to point out what I said here. I've also asked a few others to comment, as I'd like to see this discussed more. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Right on. I've commented further there (btw, I appreciate notes like this, because my watchlist is too long to be useful). DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actors

Hi I've opened a discussion about categorizing actors and actresses separately at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Splitting actors by gender. I need some input. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at BigDwiki's talk page.
Message added 03:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDwiki (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For being one of the wisest thinkers on wikipedia in regards to content development and assessing notability. You don't strike me as the sort who cares about barnstars but what the heck, your presence on here is big, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

at WP:REFUND]], I have emailed a copy of the article. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

recent RFC

Hi DGG, thank you again for your input at Talk:Hockey stick controversy where you said, "Criticism is almost always the better word [better than "attack"] for a Wikipedia article on anything controversial. The reader will decide on the nature of the criticism and the merits of the arguments." You might be surprised that despite your input and that of two others who said the same thing, it is being claimed that because you qualified this with "almost always", it means that while you agreed on the specific point ("criticism" not "attack"), you probably didn't agree on the general principle or interpretation of NPOV. Somehow they claim that you would still think that if a reliable source uses emotive, loaded language, it is generally better to the use exactly the same terms in the article to avoid misrepresenting the source or subtly altering the meaning or reducing the clarity. Is that actually your view or was I correct to take your statement as agreement on NPOV as well. Best, Alex Harvey (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with it now. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish that was true. In his response he seems to want to say that this is exactly what he always said and once again asserts that I have mispresented him. Naturally I don't agree. He goes on to say that a mutually acceptable compromise was found but in fact it wasn't; I just gave up. Would you mind having a look at my response to see if you agree with my commentary? He also asked a question about Lysenko which I tried to answer and perhaps you'd like to give your view as well. I do feel, for what it's worth, that so much of the conflict in the climate change pages could be resolved if this point about NPOV is ever settled. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

nothing will ever settle this controversy, because too much of the motivations on each side are other than purely scientific. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So what do you suggest. Edit warring? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. But a serious question. What should I do. Raise another RfC for the next issue? We all know what happened to the good editors like Cla68 & AQuestForKnowledge when they requested Arbitration. So that's not an option. Should I just accept that I'm not welcome to edit in the topic area of my primary interest due to labeling I've received as a "fringe theorist"? I am not, by the way, on any "side", and I have to say I resent the assumption, if it was an assumption, that because I'm under constant attack by the majority in there I must be on the "other side". Certainly they keep repeating this loudly and as often as they can, but that doesn't make it true. My view is exactly the same as yours as stated above, "too much of the motivations on each side are other than purely scientific". I couldn't agree more. I just don't like the way it seems to be directed at the present NPOV dispute, which would include me. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My own experience is that I avoid editing in some areas where I have considerable professional or personal involvement because of my desire to avoid disputes here, and my knowledge that I could not manage to edit there without either getting into fights, or resenting the fact that I had to refrain from getting into fights. I do have a very strong position on the basic issue behind these articles, but I will not edit them, and will only make a comment if I can make a neutral one. In one different area, where I tried deliberately writing for the enemy, so they could be more sensibly refuted--an area where the enemy were too unskilled or ignorant to make a decent job of writing for themselves, I found myself being accused by those whose views I shared of being a traitor, and being deliberately deceitful in saying I was writing for the enemy. It's many years since I've even been willing to take a look at those articles. In some other areas where I have been initially unknowledgeable and have tried to intervene in a neutral way, I find myself under attack from both sides. That, I've learned to accept, but I realize that if I continue editing there I will surely develop a bias for one position or another.Hence I skip around. There is no way to win a fight on Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about deletions (another admin)

Sigh...I feel like an elementary school, tattling on another student...here I am only 3 days into adminning, and I've encounter another admin doing deletions that are...concerning to me. I know I could take this right to ANI, but I feel like bringing it here is a little better, since it's less likely to cause unecessary drama in case I'm wrong. You know deletion policy better than anyone else. If you could, please take a look at the Special:log] of User:DragonflySixtyseven. I came across the admin because a user whose page had been deleted by DS was questioning the process and the outcome. So, I asked DS about that specific deletion (it was of The Creator's Testimony: An Introduction to Applied Philosophy. Now, this is a vanity press book (so DS claimed), so, odds are very high that no matter what process was used, the article would eventually be deleted. However, DS deleted it with an edit summary of "(published by Author House => notability not asserted)". As was made abundantly clear in my RfA, A7 (the closest criteria) is not about notability; furthermore, A7 doesn't apply to books. I mean, I suppose WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY could apply here...but then I looked at DS's log, and saw a broader pattern. See, the second thing about the deletion of that article that surprised me was that no CSD tag was every put on the article--instead, DS just deleted it without giving the editor a chance to contest the deletion, without even notifying xyr. I checked policy, and I can't find information either way, but I thought that part of the principle behind CSD is that at least 2 editors (one tagging, one deleting) see and confirm that the article meets the criteria. When I looked through DS's log, I see a lot of deletions that fit this pattern: no warning, no discussion, no second editor. Again, in the cases that I looked at, it seems likely that the articles would like be deleted (I saw a lot of User pages that were being used for promotional purposes), but this type of deletion without even a second opinion worries me. It seems like, at best, it saves a little time, but, at worst either alienates editors (who could easily not even readily understand what to do when the article they were working on suddenly disappears w/o warning or discussion) or even ends up with articles deleted without at least a minimal amount of double-checking.

So...does this look like a problem to you? Am I simply, in my inexperience, failing to see the method to DS's work? Is this, in fact, acceptable behavior (i.e., if I come across a new page that I'm certain is deletable, can I just delete it immediately without tagging it first)? If this is a problem, how would you suggest is the best way to handle it? I've already asked DS a question about the specific book article in question, but not about the overall pattern. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

First, generally: There are other admins doing similar, including at least one wikifriend. This is the sort of situation that shows the weakness of some elements of our community structure. With 700 active admins, the only way to avoid incessant conflicts is to avoid challenging one another except in extreme situations, and to tolerate things we know to be harmful to the encyclopedia. A long-term admin who has made many interpersonal connections can essentially do as they please, unless they violate one of the few bright-line rules--and even they experience shows they are likely to forgiven, or that nobody will have the courage to complain, and this has led to mutually-protective long-term alliances. No one admin can break this; it is not as much a matter of courage as the almost certain failure.

fortunately , for some situation there are direct ways of procedure--in cases like this, deletion review, where a truly wrong admin action will usually be reversed. However, in the past this has not always worked with an article like this for something which is clearly and hopelessly non-notable. The response has in the past often been, NOT BURO, and IAR. But recently this has sometimes been the case, and I would not hesitate to do this if I thought the article had any merits whatsoever. However, for this particular article there is a more evasive solution which I would normally do: G11 is flexible enough that the the article can be considered entirely promotional, so I can simply assume the wrong reason was accidentally chosen--and this does happen in good faith, especially using semi-automated tools; I've done it myself-- so I can undelete and immediately redelete under the right rationale to correct the error in the log, justifying it , of course, by NOT BURO and IAR. I intend to find similar ways to deal with some other deletions, and will comment accordingly on the user talk p. There is a related discussion at WT:CSD you might be interested in.

Systematic errors are a more difficult situation, and though the articles can be dealt with, the admin remains a continuing source of new errors. . The usual course is to wait for slightly defensible articles, and take each of them to Deletion Review in the hope of eventually embarrassing the admin into improvement. Almost everybody here pays some attention to public opinion, If not , the deletion review decisions serve as a background to AN/I, And, if necessary, AN/I, to arb com.

I do not think I have ever taken something to AN/I, except to confirm a block or some other admin action, though I comment if someone takes something there & I think I can be helpful, or if I need to add another voice to establish a clearer consensus. I have once suggested the available technique of blocking the admin, which I think might at present prevent them from admin actions except viewing deletions, but in any case is a perfect prelude to a quick Arb Com, as unblocking oneself in a case like this is one of the bright-line rules, and taking admin actions even if the system allows would is probably be treated as another. However, my suggestion was totally disregarded, and it's not something one admin can do without clear consensus, for another would unblock, and then Wheel-warring applies. Similarly, there's the possibility of starting an RfC/U; I have certified once, to no avail, and offered a second time, which would also have been to no avail. I've rarely know RfC/U to produce anything useful, unless the editor is actually willing to change in good faith, which used to never be the case, but has this year happened once or twice.

As for second editor, I have tried repeatedly to get such a rule, and come near it. I suggest you propose it at WP:AFD, using the above examples, I think consensus has changed sufficiently. There are valid cases when one admin alone is enough, and these have caused some difficulty in the past. I'd suggest limiting the rule to criteria other than copyright, vandalism, defamation, and author-requested. Empty and no-context have been previously proposed as exceptions, but there have been errors here also. There is one additional possible exception: an article that has already been prodded, but seems AfD-able. I've sometimes deleted them myself, on the theory that the prodding ed. is a second set of eyes. But I may have been wrong in doing this. A previous argument was the backlog at CAT:CSD, but of late weeks there have not been backlogs. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the extended response. I also saw your response to DS on Anand's talk page, and that was another point I had made to DS earlier. As has been widely discussed elsewhere, the whole speedy deletion process, if when fully complete, must be quite frustrating for new users who really are trying to contribute what they see as a useful article. The idea of shortcutting it even farther, down to a single person making a decision and not even informing the editor of it, disturbs me. And on applying the criteria strictly or not, I read over some of WT:CSD, and there I see numerous editors strongly derying that both they and the community as a whole believe the criteria must be interpreted very narrowly. I have no interest in taking any sort of actions against DS (at this time), nor do I think I'll spend much of my already limited and over-full WP time monitoring xyr deletion logs...but it just shocked me and, in fact, saddened me a little. At some point, I'll probably look into participating at Deletion Review (in general, I mean), so I'll see what rolls over there. For myself, I'll try to stick to more "standard" interpretations of CSD. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the practical way to affect policy in this area is deletion review. It has a rather specialized way or working, so just as you plan, it is easier to become effective if you you watch it a while first. There are a few regulars (like myself) who seem to do it all unless something of widespread (and usually unfortunate) interest is there, so wider participation would help greatly--as with everything in Wikipedia including the overall project. Things can change, sometimes for the better; there used to be many more single-handed deletes. (cc. to all talk page lurkers.)

Meanwhile ,the best way to help is to get people to improve articles before re-submitting them. There are probably about one or two hundred worthy cases a day, but if you and I and everyone else who care gives friendly effective help to one of them a day, it will help--and the good new editors will I hope know enough to be friendly in their turn. If people are treated in an unfriendly manner when they start, even those who overcome it are all too likely to treat others just the same. (cc. to all talk page lurkers.I wrote this paragraph expressly for you) DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Girlsounds

I have provided 15 references to show my little article's relevance and notability and I am not receiving any feedback or aid from editors who have been inappropriate in their behavior towards me as well as the article. There has been a considerable amount of time spent rewriting and editing as well as searching for references. Discospinster, although, initially accusing me of plageurism(I'm writing about myself!) feels the article has some merit however Mark of the Beast is pushing for immediate deletion. I need to have feedback on whether to continue for it is cruel to have me working for weeks on an article that does not meet with the Wikepedia standards. This has been a particularly unpleasant experience which I plan NEVER to repeat. bye wikiGirlsounds (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given you on your talk p. the best advice I can. It is possible there is one or more articles there, but it would take someone more knowledgable than myself in the subject area to untangle them. Please do not give up on Wikipedia You have, it appears, some specialized knowledge, and it seems there are some books on the subject. You might do best by writing about other artists than yourself. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

May I have your input, please?

It appears that a couple users are trying to implement the restriction of new articles to autoconfirmed users from the recent RfC (please refer to this bugzilla thread). I'm not certain that everything is in place to start that restriction. The closing admin specifically mentioned a few conditions.

the discussion also showed consensus for making (unspecified) improvements to the Article Wizard and giving more attention to the Articles for Creation process.

and

Almost everyone who commented on it seems to think that the Article Wizard can and should be improved. There were also repeated concerns about making sure that the Articles for Creation process gets more attention so it does not become clogged and proposed articles get the improvements they need. Participants on both sides of the discussion agreed on these points.

As you wrote the key dissenting view, would you mind looking in to this situation and then providing your input to this conversation with the WMF staff? Thank you for your consideration. Cogitating (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your comment there and I agree with you, and will say as much, but I am also going to say that I do not think the WMF can or should prevent the community from doing something like this. I've consistently opposed their interference in our content beyond the minimum legal necessities, and I've opposed some of the policies resulting from it, such as the excessively stringent NFCC restrictions beyond the requirements of copyright law, and the adoption of a BLP policy that permits use to suppress unfavorable but well-sourced articles on significant subjects, and is potentially destructive of NPOV. I saw their attempt last year to impose a policy of restricting sexual images, which was only reduced to some degree of reason by a change in board membership. I see their willingness to encourage a mechanism within Wikipedia to facilitate outside censorship; again, the only thing which has kept this from being not just encouraged but required, was a change in board membership. This will be a recurrent issue. I oppose using them as a court of final appeal for issues within Wikipedia, and shall continue to do so. This far outweighs almost any individual issue. Even though we may decide wrong, at least letting the WP community decide gives freedom of action to the individual Wikipedias to have divergent policies, and thus allows experiment even in sensitive areas, which is the only way to prevent stagnation. IMO, this applies both to the board and to the programmers. I opposed the introduction by the programmers of a crude and unscientific system of article rating, and their willingness to expand it, without each time getting explicit consent of the community. It has nonetheless apparently been accepted by the community, and I am not sure it is worth the effort to involve myself in its improvement. I opposed their attempt to introduce a deficient version of vector as the default, similarly--at least then, so did much of the community, and we were at least able to get it improved significantly.

Yes, I consider the introduction of this feature a potential disaster. I expect to see the number of incoming editors fall precipitously even below its present unsatisfactory level, as soon as it is implemented, and possibly not recover even after the trial has stopped. The attraction of being able to make an article is one of the primary motivating factors for editing. It is however possible that I have misjudged, and the proven discouraging effect of the extremely negative comments that new editors encounter is even worse, and the decrease in this might counterbalance the negative effects of not being able to immediately start an article. The only effective thing I can do in this case is to try to persuade people to diminish the length of the trial, and try to find ways of working with new editors despite the constraints, and, perhaps, try to keep fewer promising articles from being rejected via the article creation process--at present, too many of the few people working there insist on a good quality, rather than just an acceptable article.

Sometimes a cause is lost. I opposed the use of BLP Prod, but it was adopted, and my experiences at prod patrol indicate it has had at most a trivial beneficial effect, as everything it properly deletes would and would have been deleted anyway. and a considerable negative one, as it leads to many deletions of articles on people who could have been sourced had anyone experienced here had the time & incentive to do it under a deadline--and it has not noticeably decreased the number of incoming unsourced BLP articles. I've given up on getting rid of it, even though it takes a good deal of my time to prevent whatever percentage of inappropriate deletions I manage, and thus has decreased my participation in other things, such as just this sort of policy discussion.

Sometimes opposition can be effective, as with patrolled changes. I certainly opposed it, and when it became clear it would be adopted supported those who successfully limited it to a trial and to a limited range of articles. The community , upon seeing among other things that those using it did not limit the trial to the intended purpose, ended up by rejecting it, at least in its present form. (The community asked the developers to improve it for another trial, and the developers, not unreasonably, were unwilling to do the amount of work involved if it was going to be to be rejected in the end, as they I think correctly foresaw it would be.) DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Avaya AFD

WOW - Thank you so very much!!!! > I will start to make as many changes as possible, and I have added many 3rd refs over the last week. What would you recommend that I change on Avaya ERS 8600? I have edited the top of the page is this more like what it should look like? Geek2003 (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

now stop a bit, and I'll show you DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK Geek2003 (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

done. Please make sure you see the reason for each of the changes and omissions. (Basically, brevity, and to avoid sounding like a spec sheet.) DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow thanks!! Is it OK to talk about the specific modules and what they are used for, just don't use bullets. Geek2003 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Only the key ones, that are unique or innovative or relating to basic function. Power supplies are power supplies, and the details of them and the various output configurations and so on are best left to the manufacturer's literature--but if the entire line has redundant power supplies that fact can be mentioned, because it differentiates professional from consumer equipment. . It matters when buying a product, but not to understanding it. That's the basic distinction. If only a client or user (or potential client or user) would care, it's not encyclopedic material. Thus one thing that always needs to be omitted even from those that are worth mention is model numbers and the like, or even the precise technical name of the unit. The most important information in the article at present is that it was capable enough to handle the Olympics. That's the sort of general interest material we want. And please make a thorough search for all possible substantial 3rd party reviews, though of course they're easier to find for consumer electronics. There is some simple missing information--where does it stand in the line of products from the company--is it the largest, is it still the current state of the art, when was it introduced, how many have been sold if the data is available.

The next question, is whether this should be combined with other switches in a combination article. What's wrong with an article on "Avaya switches", or more general if necessary, like "Avava infrastructure products."  ? If you want to do this, and I hope you do, let me know--it's very tricky to do in the middle of an AfD, and I would want to consult with the nominator on the best course to follow. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So would a history section to explain the 16 years of evolution be appropriate? Then we could also cover all the 8000 systems (8100, 8103, 8106, 8110, 8300, 8303, 8306, 8310, 8600, 8603, 8606, 8610, CO8600, 8800, 8803, 8806, 8810) group evolution as 8100, 8300, 8600, 8800 within one page. Geek2003 (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is usually the best way to do it. , This is sometimes done as a paragraph describing the trends (higher speeds, faster connections, more sophisticated software --btw, do such switches have software, firmware, or both)with selected details in a table, but to keep it readable it should contain key features only. A article doing this is sometimes fairly easy to reference as compared to that for a single model. Even if the present article is deleted, you can prepare such an article. For all similar products, it would probably be a good idea to start with such a group article. DGG ( talk ) 14:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Opinion needed: as you've been involved in the messy Avaya MfD's, do you think there's a better way to handle them? Like freezing the similar MfD's and link them to one general? I don't know. I'm just guessing, OR is the matter that each product needs to be viewed separately to see its individual notability? Thanks is advance... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel it going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

J. T. Alley. Notable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cherrybrook Kitchen. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Human Services – Board Certified Practitioner

You declined the "CSD on A7 grounds", which I am not questioning, but I do ask you reconsider, and perhaps speedy delete as per A7, as there are three editors saying the same thing at the AfD, and the COI circumstance I think passes the duckie on the left hand side for a non-notable advert. In fact, a google search of the text reveals strong copy-vio issues, but not enough for CSD under that. I think it would be wise to send a signal to COI editors that there is no problem with them trying to make their notability be reflected in the encyclopedia, but they need to make the effort to at least meet our minimum standards for content.--Cerejota (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your intentions, and I do appreciate the problem, as does anyone who works at CSD or Prod patrolling. However, I judge whether we should delete an article by the possibility of improving it to acceptable standards, not by who submits it or the need to send a message to contributors. If you wish to propose such a radical change in policy, that we should use different standards for those who do or do not have COI, propose it. My preferred technique for teaching editors is teaching, at least until I run out of patience with an editor. From the article history, the contributor did seem to respond to criticism, and I would not have given up on them after just one day of it, in which no attempt was made to explain the specific defects of the actual article. Anyone who will persevere in a positive way after receiving our standard unpleasant notices deserves more consideration. At the AfD you offered to rewrite the article if you were surer of notability; that's a way of going about things I agree with and follow also. To verify notability I checked the related organization articles, and have rewritten the parent National Board for Certified Counselors, which dates from 2007, and I intend o try to continue down the chain. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"If You Want to Send a Message, Call Western Union." 98.163.75.189 (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedies

Thanks for your note, as you can probably tell from my user page, I am not a deletionist type at all, and this may have been the second page I ever nominated for deletion (pretty sure it's my first speedy). I do not think the magazine mentioned is particularly notable, the link to it was broken as well. The article appears to have been created by a single purpose type of account and was using the subject's "linkedin" page as a source. It was poorly written and referred to the subject almost exclusively by his first name. Is merely being a published writer enough for notability? I was under the impression that notability guidelines meant that the subject was to be written about independently of him/her self. Thanks for your assistance and the education.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, being a published writer is not enough for WP:Notabity; the relevant criteria are at WP:CREATIVE. Having written a book (other than just self-published) or having stories or articles in established magazines or being an editor is enough material is give some indication of importance, and that's enough to pass speedy. Put another way, if we place writers on a scale of 1 to 10, if truly famous writers are 10, the criterion for notability is about 6 or 7; the criterion to pass speedy is 1.5 --any good-faith indication. Now, if you can find no sources to indicate that any of his publications are important, then take it to prod or , AfD and say so. What you give are excellent reasons for deletion, but not speedy. The article was written factually so it escapes G11, entirely promotional. Many such article are just vague hype, and then G11 applies). It's good to learn the deletion criteria, and this can only be done by practice, so I urge you to continue. The safest way to learn deletion is to start with PROD, and see what happens to the articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, again for the education. I'll do better next time. Sorry if I hosed up and caused you any extra/unnecessary work.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"hosed" is wording it much too strongly. As you say, you were new at this and showing new people how to do things is the most satisfying part of my work here.

Thanks, I've been reading some of your essays, etc. If you have a newsletter, sir, I would like to subscribe to it!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have indeed been thinking about moving some of the essays to a blog, and I just might. Any ideas on titles? DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for your encouraging words, even when I messed up! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Rauscher

Hi DGG, would you mind undeleting this, and re-opening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Rauscher (2nd nomination)? Rauscher is actually quite a central figure within her community, and I was intending to expand the article based on David Kaiser's How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival, which has just been published. He mentions her quite a bit. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted, as you requested. If you make major additions to the article, I'll relist if asked to accomodate the necessary time for discussion if it seems it would be helpful. (I changed her position at LBL to match what her own CV says) DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't intending to expand the article immediately, though. I'd prefer to do it once I've read the Kaiser book, rather than cherry-picking. It seems notable enough for inclusion with the material already there, in my view; certainly having Kaiser write about the physics group she founded has underlined the notability. He gives a very interesting lecture about it (not about her, but about the group) if you ever have a spare hour. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DGG - Last year you voted on this article but it was ultimately kept with "no consensus." It is being re-considered again and I wanted let you know of the new AfD. I do not want to influence you one way or anther. FYI, to jog your memory, here were your comments from the original Afd:

DeleteThe reason the trial is cited is a very narrow technical issue, over what must be sent to the jury rather than decided by the judge, and not in any clear way related to the merits of the case. The actual issue is very local, and very unimportant. There is no substantial coverage of the actual contents of the article. If kept, I will rewrite to remove the 95% that is purely local-interest material. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 27 September 2010 UTC{)

The new AfD page is HERE Thanks for talking a look. Austex • Talk 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Eugenics in Singapore

In the other article, I'm concerned that Casliber approved this for the main page. The lead presents Singapore as a perennial eugenics society. A quick search found that the most incriminated program was highly unpopular and lasted only a year (and its main proponent only about as long in office). [2]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the same issues. Punishing COI accounts? .. the user seems clearly "upset" - that should not be allowed to reveal itself through content contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...the main proponent of that policy was Goh Keng Swee, a man I highly respect for his economic genius as one of the architects of Singapore's unique economic system. In fact, his legacy was suppressed by an increasingly jealous Lee Kuan Yew. Without GKS, there would be no Singapore. GKS resigned as a result of the leadership transition that was already preplanned. LKY was the only guy that remained of the Old Guard after 1985 in the Central Executive Committee, of course. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, maybe your history of Singapore differs from the one recorded in this book, which seems pretty WP:RS to me. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar "leadership transition in Singapore" (without quotes). Look at what you find, and pay attention to activity before the 1984 elections, stuff that happened in 1983, and aftereffects in 1985. And also take a look at all the "Old Guard" politicians -- Devan Nair, Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, Ong Teng Cheong (all greatly respected PAP politicians), forced to resign from positions of power by LKY's leadership transition scheme into relatively ceremonial posts. Of course, it did not all happen in 1985, but look at the two sources I gave at Tony Tan Keng Yam (citations 9 and 10), for the leadership transition. Those are pretty reliable and respected sources too. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AUTHOR

Why does it overstate notability, in your view?--Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

because too many thoroughly non-notable books get two book reviews. This especially applies in the academic world, where almost all books from all significant publishers are eventually reviewed, but most of them are routine. It would make more sense to combine them into articles about their authors, and that will work for full professors, for whom I have successfully argued WP:AUTHOR. But I could also argue WP:AUTHOR for associate professors in the humanities in highest quality US universities, all of whom will have necessarily written 2 books. We don't usually accept articles on associate professors otherwise--the citation record of equivalent people in the sciences is usually considered short of the borderline; I think we should, but I have other priorities.

The problem is fundamentally the same as for elements of fiction. WP:N correctly says that passing WP:N (and WP:NOT) doesn't necessarily mean there must be an article, if the material can best be handled otherwise. There is rarely any real need to split off a full article for a character, but in practice anything less gets reduced to an uninformative list. Given that the only effective process is AfD , the only protection is a full article, and I defend the articles there on that basis. The same goes for books. Articles on book of all types are usually very cursory, and best combined. If not, they are often much too expansive, promotional of the authors ideas-- sometimes to absurd lengths and detail. It is very hard to reduce them, unless the person who wrote them has left & nobody else cares. Promotionalism is a real danger to Wikipedia; we have a problem getting new editors, but what makes it worse is that too many of the editors we do get are here for promotional purposes. Whether a promotional article gets deleted depends upon which admin sees it--there is no consistency in applying the standard; indeed, there is no consistent standard to apply sat speedy, and at AfD anything that does not attract widespread attention is a toss-up.

One of the problems with promotionalism is wildly inconsistent coverage of borderline subjects. We would do much better to have a rule, and to work on filling in the gaps. I would be glad to have articles on all reviewed academic books, but not just on the ones which promulgate particular interests. but that is impossible to accomplish here without special projects dedicated to filling in the gaps. (Anyone want to join me in going systematically through Choice's Outstanding Academic Books of the Year, and add every one of them--only about 5% will already be in Wikipedia , and also add their authors--only about 25% will)

I consider my position open to further discussion; my view is not necessarily fixed. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Should I italicize the title and the name in the first sentence?

I asked Stemonitis if the editor had any idea about how I should italicize the name of this bacteria. It was recommended that I ask someone from WikiProject Microbiology. I created an article on Ehrlichia Wisconsin HM543746 which was discovered in 2009 and the results of an investigation where published in an academic journal in 2011. My problem is that in the two years of the study, there was no actual name given to this bacteria. Since the genus Ehrlichia is in the title and the rest just looks like a code name to separate it from the other bacteria in the genus, I don't know if or what part of it should be italicized. I know that the template italictitle can italicize the title, but I do not know if it is possible to italicize a part of the name for the article title. Joe Chill (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the correct format is "Ehrlichia Wisconsin HM543746". And it's done easiest with the DISPLAYTITLE magicword--I adjusted the article appropriately; you can see from the wikicode how it works. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC) .

Thanks for the help and also thanks for fixing a few editing problems. Joe Chill (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries

I was wondering if you could offer some sage advice here? We're still in the spitballing phase, and I wonder if you could point out work we could use to help local librarians understand the natural Wikipedia/Library connection. Your subpages seem a good start, but I'm thinking we'll want to construct a librarian entry point, with FAQ and ideas. Perhaps the folks over at GLAM would also have some input. What do you think? Feel free to answer there. BusterD (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussions about citations for notable alumni

Dear DGG, you have always been a Dean to us occasional editors. Please enlighten me on an issue being discussed with another editor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muhandes#Citations_on_QES_page To roughly summarize the issue, he insists on citations for all alumni listed on a school page, such as this one QES, HK, even tho those same citations already appear on the alumni's bio pages. I cited MIT Alumni as example to show that as long as those citations appear on the people's bio pages, they would be considered verified. I thought the bio page would serve as hub to verify everything about that person. Please advise. Much obliged.--Kgwu24 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

replied there in some detail. Nobody questions that everything must be sourceable, but this is not the same as saying everything must be explicitly sourced inline, or even in the same article. Such lists are mere summaries. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your eloquent response, as usual. It seems a trivial matter that the guy would hang on so hard-nosed. There is at least one kind of unintended consequence for having the citations on the school page. Since it's primarily visited by students, those who are not familiar with Wiki will misread that the citation is to support notability. Just imagine the implication -- someone winning a high school scholarship is considered to be notable.--Kgwu24 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

People here often hang on to trivial matters with great determination. The way of working makes it easier, for someone who is really determined can keep at it obsessively. This is relatively non-trivial compared to some of the things the most persistent fights have been about: the most recent is when to use hyphens { - ), as compared to en-dashes ( – ), -- even though most computer users cannot tell them apart on the screen. ( I generally use -- in comments, though I know it is not permitted in articles where I must use an en dash without spaces—like this. ) and whether or not spaces go before and after. Even with references, there is no agreement about whether they should always be required in-line (they are for FA), and the various styles of referencing (footnotes are not the only acceptable method, though some think they should be). Precisely because the matters are trivial one can give long arguments in each direction, none of which can be definitively refuted.

Your comment that the footnoting confuses referencing for notability is correct, but there are other reasons also. Excessively footnoted articles are hard to read; footnoted articles are extremely difficult to edit; the current Wikipedia methods of inserting footnotes are confusing to the extent that they keep people from contributing at all (I use ProveIt though I dislike parts of it); most important, it detracts from concentrating our attention on the really questionable material. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks. I don't want to give the impression that there is conflict between us about the general matter of handling ELs--improper ELs are something we both consider it a priority to get rid of. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think first I do owe you an apology, when first looking through the contributions, I actually thought it was you ... there is considerable overlap in the articles both edit, and of the 'opposers' of XLinkBot you are one of the strongest. But things clearly did not match up (even though there were some points that made it likely, others made it very unlikely). I decided to wait and see whether the IP would screw up (which they did in the end).

It would be good to have a re-analysis of the reverts of XLinkBot. I've done an analysis of 30 MySpace reverts quite some time ago (1-2 years), and at that point, 29 of the reverts were 'good' ('superfluous links': MySpace of individuals or old members on band-pages, non-existing MySpaces, unrelated MySpaces, plain spam, fanpages, etc. etc), only one was a case where it was the actual MySpace of (IIRC) the band (though the official bandpage was on that page as well - I would describe that as 'I would not have reverted, but not added either'). I did a couple of months ago a quick-check of 10 YouTube reverts, and that contained 2 copyvios .. a significant concern. Yes, more and more YouTube become official, still way way more is either unsuitable in the first place, not official or even plain copyright violation, I do not believe there is a major shift in the percentage of official video's on YouTube.

Surely, there will be reverts of good links, but I think we need to see it in percentages of the total reverts on a domain (and if the percentage of reverts of good links, in relation to the badness of the other reverts, becomes too high, then indeed such domains should be removed from the list). If you put yourself to it, it is possible to find a lot of allowed YouTubes, Twitters, MySpaces, etc. etc. (see the edits by the IP that started this discussion). But I still believe that by far most of them, when added by 'new' users (who are not aware of our policies and guidelins), are not suitable. Of course, all should be personally analysed on one end, on the other side, reminding editors quickly that they have to take WP:EL/WP:NOT/WP:COPYRIGHT etc. into account is also important. And with 18 edits which add external links per minute (46 links added per minute) it is impossible to check them all by hand (and preferably in the first couple of minutes after addition). XLinkBot is extremely soft, tries to be friendly, especially on its first revert. And it does not get too often to AIV. One needs to 'push' it, and most of the editors that get to a level 3 or level 4 warning do go 'yell' at the bot first .. if only this IP would have done that after having been reverted 4-5 times, I might have noticed earlier and resolved it (I've now added a detection for this to the bot); we've had workarounds built-in ever since the very beginning of the bots that work this, most now also accessible to all admins on-wiki). This type of editors, editors who are continuing to add good links and are continuously reverted, are pretty, if not extremely, rare.

Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I recognize the same problems you do. I rework a lot of organization pages, and I remove youtube and the like from the EL section if there's a regular web page, just like I remove all the links to the internal pages of the main site. (Hey, can you think of an automated way of detecting that particular problem?) (What I see more of in the areas I work is valid Facebook pages than YouTube pages, but I avoid working in popular music and related areas, which I think is where YouTube is prominent). Certainly the percentage of bad links to such pages is on the order of 99%, but that 1% is still a substantial number. I recognize the need with our volume of material to have computer assisted tools for editing; I don't consider the problem is mainly with the bot--or other bots, but the editors who think like bots, or who completely trust them.

However, I admit that I have extended good faith a number of times when it hasn't been present and other people would have been more skeptical; I prefer it to the opposite. Incidentally, I have carelessly edited a few times when logged out , but I think I have always asked for oversight. I don't do POINTY things, but I will sometimes defend those who do if I think the point is important. I know I am working in some areas fairly near the limits, and so I try to be extra careful not to go beyond them. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That 1% is about the amount I guess that gets reverted wrongly on that type of links. I do agree, of those editors in that 1% some will be bitten (what, of all the reverts, good or bad, some will be bitten by a friendly remark that their link is not appropriate), and that is an issue, but also a small part of editors is bitten when you leave a (non-bot) personalised message on their talkpage. I do that sometimes, and I do still get yelled at, or blindly reverted, or editors just never return. I know, c'est le ton qui fait la chanson (sorry, don't have a reference for this quote), but sometimes that 'ton' does not even make a difference.

You said somewhere, that you manage to convert promotional editors .. you actually have to group them. You have the promotional editors who are here to promote a person, a company, or an organisation - editors who are often specialists in an area and would be an asset to Wikipedia when converted - you have the 'promotional fans' - who only care about their subject and putting them in the best possible light, they don't care being converted and doing something else - you have the SEO's - who are only out for money, they edit what they get paid for (and often, also their own company when they are here anyway) - and true spammers (sildenafil, tramadol, muscle enhancers ...), they only care to have their links here. Every converted specialist is one, and that should certainly be an attempt. But also of those, if you approach them with silk gloves and hugs and kisses, some will be bitten, while a friendly remark does also convert editors sometimes (I do see the 'I did not know that, I'll take more care in the future' messages).

One of the issues is the IP or new editor, who is boosting with activity, and picks up the policies and guidelines really fast. Those editors should be made exempt from XLinkBot (whitelisted) as soon as possible, but they are difficult to detect in the plethora of edits. XLinkBot now alerts me of editors who have more than 9 messages from XLinkBot, either way, such editors need to be looked at (either they are genuine editors and should be whitelisted, or they are slow spammers and should be blocked for a bit of time to actually get the message). Maybe the note "Due to the nature of what the bot does, it will occasionally revert additions which may have been appropriate. As an RC patroller you are always required to make sure vandalism is obvious and uncontroversial, please do not revert someone who reverts or 'undoes' an XLinkBot edit based solely on the bot reverting the addition originally." on User:XLinkBot's userpage should be strenghtened and expanded, and be linked from the AIV-reports the bot produces (see IPuser-reportstring and user-reportstring in User:XLinkBot/Settings, there also the messages the bot leaves can be adapted in 'real time' (settings are loaded before every revert; feel free to adapt if necessary, please do check if the messages it actually leaves are formatted properly, they are concatenated in a bit complex way). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

PR firm discussion

Hi,

I really appreciated your comments at User talk:Jimbo Wales. You said you've worked with a number of internal PR departments, but no PR firms, because none will admit it. I'd like to work with you, representing the first firm that admits it. I've been editing here seven years. My contribution history just shows a year and nine months because I had to change my username due an off-wiki situation, but my current account has over 5,000 edits and I've been involved in a couple leadership positions here. I believe in Wikipedia and its mission, to the point of telling clients "Sorry, we can't do that for you." Words/phrases like "premier," "first company to..." and "world-wide" do not appear in my writing. I see a potential for PR firms to have interests aligned with Wikipedia's mission and contribute high quality photos, articles, and other items that will improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm coming into an executive role with my new firm, and so I'm not subject to pressure from clients, because our company's reputation and effectiveness mean more to us than a little money from a client who just wants to promote him/herself. I've contacted ArbCom and received advice from them about how to proceed. Would you be willing to work with me on this? One of two things will happen: Either my firm and Wikipedia will find a mutually beneficial situation that could become the model for future collaboration, or it will become clear that it is impossible for PR firms to edit neutrally, and thus this experiment will be clear and incontravertable evidence of the same.

To be honest, if this experiment shows that it is impossible for PR firms to work with Wikipedia (or that it requires too much AfD time or editing time), I'd like to know that, because I'll be leading the effort to detect them and ban them, even though I work for one. Why? Because I want the playing field to be level for all the firms. Either we all have a way to work transparently, or else none of use are allowed.

Please let me know your thoughts. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 03:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

reply in progress., will take a day or so. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 10:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, got your email, but have been unusually busy. Will get back to you when I get a free moment. Thanks. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 08:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on a "high school" A7

As I am, of course, well aware following my RfA, CSD A7 explicitly exempts schools. Do you believe that it applies to "online" schools; specifically, Denver Online High School? I just removed the speedy deletion template, though I'm not really sure it qualifies for the exception. Looking at their webpage (just added as an EL to the article), it looks like they probably are real, and seem at least somewhat connected to the Denver public school system (though they also seem to charge fees, which confuses me). If the are operated by the State, then they probably even meet the general "All high schools are automatically notable" AfD exemption.

Obviously, the article needs clean-up, but I'd rather wait and see if it should even be an article before doing so. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a public school, though private high schools are just as notable as public ones. (I don't see a mention of fees, but most public schools do collect some sort of fee, and almost all charge tuition to students from outside their district.) The article however was totally unacceptable--mainly devoted to the names of the teachers. I removed that, but there is still much necessary rewriting. The real question for an online school at this or any level would be whether it is actually a separate school, or merely a program--we cannot necessarily go by the name it calls itself. If a program, it would best go in the article for the Denver Board of Education. My feeling is that it an actual separate school, but for something like this, a 3rd party reference will be really helpful. What it clearly is not is a mere tutoring center or support facility, which are almost never notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That all sounds very reasonable to me; I figured erring on the side of caution (removing the A7) was the better choice. Thanks for the trimming; I'll go take a look and see if I can find any sort of third party sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Thank you for letting it stay;) Well,i have already been criticized by some that i categorize cemeteries/burial grounds by religion/denomination but it really helps people who are interested in genealogy,as most of the time the religious affiliation is related to ethnicity (Baltic Germans=Lutheran,Russians=Orthodox etc.) Most of those cemeteries in the West are non-denominational/non-sectarian or multi-confessional today but that was not the case before the WWII Evangelidis (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing help for William Woodard

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Woodard looks interesting. The guy probably predates most online refs, but his story looks somewhat plausible. Would you have time to do some sourcing magic on him and see if you can substantiate what's there? I'm taking the nom at face value that nothing relevant has showed up in Google... Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought I would actually have to go to the library for this, but I did it at home in half an hour at midnight. Never take a search at Google on face value--people think it includes G Scholar and G books, but at present it doesn't. A proper search in the Googles yielding all the information one can get from them is a non-trivial exercise. I've told that to my students for many years now. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability of high schools

Hi -- I hope you have been well. I seem to recall, and have stated (or mis-stated, as the case may be) that I thought you may have said in the past that (verifiable) high schools are generally presumptively notable. But, in the event I've mis-spoken as to what you said, feel free to correct me. I made mention of my recollections at an AfD where I've not myself !voted (as of yet), here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesivta Tiferes Yisroel. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

such is the accepted compromise: high schools have articles, elementary schools in the absence of special notability get merged. But the compromise , like all informal and formal Wikipedia rules, has effect only as long as people here want it to have effect. I think recent decisions have upheld this in general, but there are always one or two people who challenge it. Such is probably the case here,There may be other factors, though, which I mention them at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewellery

OK, I've restored. I suppose non-notable or essay/OR would have been better reasons, but if you think the editor can make something of it, that's fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re blp prod at Sulev Kannike

Hello DGG. Having read your statement above I'd like to point out that for one I see nothing wrong in prodding unsourced BLP articles and thus informing the author of the relevant WP policy – even though I could have searched for sources myself. That way the authors of such articles who are most often new to Wikipedia are told in a friendly but consequent way that there are certain standards to obey. By inserting missing sources myself and afterwards telling the author that such sourcing is actually required there is always the risk that new editors regard this as a free service and won't care too much about writing profound articles themselves. Moreover I like to think that I'm experienced enough as a WP editor to decide what to prod and what to accept without comment while patrolling new pages.

The real problem in this matter are automated scripts like Twinkle or Huggle that regularly keep missing non-standard sections like "Sources" or "External links" in BLP articles and slap a prod on it even though such articles may have valid sources. Regards, De728631 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Response

1 I absolutely see a good deal wrong in BLP Prodding unsourced articles when the person is specified as a public figure of sufficient importance that they will have easily findable sources. (This man is Latvia's ambassador to NATO, & there were dozens of excellent sources under his name as given, in English, in Google News Archive, which is as easy as it gets in finding sources ) This is especially true because some admin feel they have no obligation to check , either, before deletion. This reduces the human work on BLP prod to the dimensions of two particularly dumb bots, checking an article for the presence of formal elements without reading it, let alone understanding it. That's fine for placing a notice; it is not fine for deletion. WP:Deletion Policy applies to all deletion procedures: deletion is the last resort. The very best alternative to deletion for unsourced articles is to source them, and everybody working here has a obligation to help in doing this at al least a little as occasion offers when they see an article, and as resources and time permits. I don't consider everyone has anything like the obligation to do this the way I do: it is the main thing I do here, and an important one of the purposes for which I joined in the first place was to improve WP's referencing; I have access to a little more resources than some people; I can work at least minimally in a number of languages; I have greater skill in using even elementary resources than most and certainly have greater patience in using then; and I have the librarian's ability to make an accurate guess whether or not sources are likely. An appropriate minimal effort anyone can do is looking in Google News Archive or whatever similar search engine might be appropriate under the name given--it's even built into the automated notice.The way I work on the problem BLPs:

In some fields I no longer attempt to source some fields because they interest me less, and a very large percentage of the unsourced articles in those fields are in fact unsustainable even if sourced: popular entertainment, and sports. At the start of BLPO prod i tried to do them all, but I found myself without time to do anything else.

People writing an unsourced bio are often here to add the one article with no intention of doing anything else. They;'re not even likely to see the notice, and if the person is important, but not very important, it offers our one practical chance to get the article . If someone looks like they intend to continue, or their edit history indicates they intend to continue, they need instruction. Instruction is best administered in a friend but firm manner, not by threatening people. The automatic template does an altogether wrong job of it--though it makes an attempt to be informal and positive,it is still obviously an automated notice,with the expected negative connotations, and people have learned to ignore them beyond grasping the general import--I doubt anyone ever reads it through. If I think it will be of any actual value, I leave a message explaining that while I did it, they must do it properly in the future, telling them what is needed, in terms focussing on their particular article to show I have indeed read it personally, and making it clear that otherwise the articles run a considerable risk of deletion otherwise--it seems to communicate properly about half the time, which is pretty good for any sort of notice. For sever cases I have something stronger, for example:

Advice and Warning

As the reviewing administrator for these deletions, I need to offer you some advice. We are very glad to have articles about footballers from all countries, but they MUST have references. If they have appeared in games on the highest level national league---which is the basic requirement for them to have articles in Wikipedia-- there should always be references in the relevant national newspapers --usually easily findable in Google News and Google News Archive. There should also be a discussion or at least a listing of them in the web site for their team, and a listing in the general football web sites. These references need to be added, and they need to be added at the very beginning.

Sometimes I have been able to check articles like these before deletion and add at least one necessary reference, but I cannot promise always to have the time to do so--and football is not one of the subjects in which I have the most personal interest. It is not my responsibility to do this, nor the responsibility of anyone here but yourself. If you can write the article in the first place , you surely have the references in front of you when you are doing so, in order to get the names right and add the key statistics. That's when to do it! It is unfair to expect others to fill in what you can do so easily. I expect that you will start doing this, otherwise you may find that you are wasting your efforts, because the articles will get deleted. I have other responsibilities, and it is taking too much of my available time here to do your work for you,when there are so many other things that need fixing. In particular, I am not going to work further on the currently nominated articles. If you want them kept, work on them yourself.

Sometimes it doesn't work and they continue. Then I'll give a formal 4th level warning, which usually stops them. If not, I have blocked if they add so many that it amounts to disruption.

2. I am also concerned with developing new editors and removing the barriers to increased participation. One of the foundation priorities this year, at general request, is increasing the number of editors, Not discouraging them at the initial entry is critically important--the foundation's research surveys as well as individual complaints have shown that having an article rejected is extremely likely to prevent any further attempt, no matter what reassuring messages are sent. It is unreasonable to expect most new editors to get everything right initially. Therefore they must be taught, but taught in such way that everything practical is done to get their articles improved if improvement is possible—and in cases where it is not, that personal non-threatening actually helpful advice is given. The existing BLP Prod process , and all other deletion processes, is neither friendly nor helpful. In cases where it appears an article is possible, the new editor needs help in doing it properly, not just a warning to do it. In cases where it appears the article is hopeless, the editor needs an explanation why--with respect to that particular article, not in general terms--and guidance in finding more useful work to do here,

I find, as do most teachers, that a very good way to provide help is by example. In case of unsourced articles, that means adding at least one reference and explaining that more are needed., and where to find them. Nobody can be expected to understand initially either why we need sources, or what we consider acceptable sources, especially for biographies. Those of us with experience here need to share it. This is a community project.

The problem is primarily the people here. We can expect bots to be stupid. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks a lot for explaining your thoughts on the BLP process. It seems that we have two oppoosing views on the benefits of templates here. Let me note that in my opinion the current BLP prod template message is by no means a threatening "warning" like the standard vandalism messages ("please stop or you will face consequences"). Instead the BLP prod message is a neutral notification that has even a disclaimer included not to take anything personal but to improve the article in question and how to do it. It has also an icon which makes it more noticeable than a text-only message written by an editor. Therefore I see it absolutely fit to serve as a helpful means in improving the skills of new editors. Of course we can address anyone without any templated messages but as you put it I mostly "find myself without time to do anything else." My approach is to mark problematic new articles while patrolling the new pages list and then leave the rest of the work to the experts and/or the author. Of course not without giving advice to the new editors but mostly in form of the standard template message. And I have in fact gotten feedback to various template messages where people asked for further guidance. That's the usual point where I start "personal" communication. Speedy deletion messages on the other hand are something else. E.g. for insignigicant bands or recordings I tend to add an explanation to the template message in the line of "WP has certain rules on the importance of musicians and albums. Please see WP:Music" etc. And from my experience this is either understood and people do come up with sources (of any quality) or they choose to ignore every communication. De728631 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In many respects we are both trying to do the same thing. & often use the same methods. We both do, yo often personalize the existing messages, which is a reasonable solution in many cases; I wish more people would do this, and what you say encourages me to try to personalize them more often--and to do it by shortening them--the longer the message, the less of it people read. Improved ways of communicating like sre important but are not what this discussion is basically about.

What I said I find myself without time to do, is to personally source all the new unsourced BLP articles--another order of magnitude entirely. The only good solution as we all agree is for people to source their own. Responsibility asides, they usually have the source in front of them at the time they write, for they usually add specific details that nobody really memorizes except when doing shameless autobio. Nobody else can match this later--what would take anyone else time to find, they have immediately. And even if they have only an inadequate source, it's at least a good starting point. Where I differ from you is in two areas fo emphasis:

First, we need not to reject articles on really important people, even if unsourced, but to source them. I usually patrol 24 to 48 hours before the ending time. The ed. has had 8 or 9 days, and if by that time they haven't done it I decide whether it's worth trying--which depends upon the stated importance. So you might have a point in giving them the window first--but this would only be so if all admins actually checked and sourced where important or necessary at the end; however, of the ones who patrol BLP prod, most do not--they work mechanically. using justifications such as yours. There's a level of importance where sI do not take the chance of that happening--where if I find an article on someone important enough at any point, I add at least a single decent source to keep the article alive. I do not want to miss such people: they're too important to our users. I yesterday added an article on an exceptionally distinguished member of the National Academy of Sciences who had received a major appointment, but nobody had written an article about. This does not surprise me any longer, but right after that I saw an article on BLP Prod about another member of the NAS reach the 8th day.

The 'second point is even more important--more critical than having or not having any article, is retaining a contributor. More basic even than educating them, is to keep them around long enough to be educated. Surveys have shown that most people who get a negative notice never return again, and I think it would almost as bad if we had the politest possible negative notices. This is spiraling us downhill into disaster--at least the disaster of stagnation, though we should have enough people to avoid total extinction. True, it's necessary to eliminate junk--but it is so much easier to remove junk than to retain a contributor. I've deleted 12,000 articles so far in 4 years as an admin, and saved only about 10% of that, while all that time I've been able to rescue at most 100 ,(about 1% of that number) of contributors, contributors whom other editors and admins have discouraged. I work in outreach also, but my chapter is happy when we can reach the goal of one new active contributor per meeting. And only a few percent of those who take classes in the Ambassador program continue, And that's with most teachers having their class write offline in order to avoid the negativity. Such is not a method of communal writing, and does not teach the wiki way way working, where the goal of communal writing is everyone who sees an article doing something to improve it, not just to tell someone else to improve it.

My priority is people: first the people already here, because being here we must cooperate, and second the newcomers, and only then articles and article content.I think for too many people its the other way round, that they think tolerating borderline articles to keep the contributors so they'll stay with us and write better articles to be improper. I must live with them here, because they are unfortunately a majority, no matter how destructive i think them. The hope is that new people will be increasing aware of this and dilute those. we won't be able to eliminate.

I accept there are more than one valid way to make an encyclopedia , and to look at articles. No one has to agree with my way, & I think none the less of them. But I do not accept working in a way hat discourages newcomers. for the sake of quality, which will eave us a nice clean fossil, and those who would do that I cannot agree with and I will try as hard as hard as i effectively can to diminish their influence. DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

AFD

Any thoughts on the notability of Roy Eriksen? Loads of hits in google books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr B, I know you've been around here long enough to know not to use WP:GHITS as an argument in a deletion discussion, and I'm sure you know PROF, ANYBIO, and GNG like the back of your hand. Also, you are more than capable of clicking a link, doing a news search, scholar search, etc., so why on earth wouldn't you actually offer an opinion with real supporting evidence? Being the author of books in itself doesn't demonstrate notability. ^Bongo_matic 00:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised, Bongo, that any editor who understood G Scholar would use the low number of hits there as an argument for deletion of anything in the humanities. I have almost never encountered a full professor in a major research university who was not found notable here. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as an argument for deletion, but (as I intended to imply in my nominationcomment) a (weak) lack of argument for keeping. Indeed, the notability guidelines work this way—something affirmative fact is required to meet them (even the intrinsic ones—in which case it's simply a demonstration of inclusion within a class.

The career of the individual in question appears to have received little note in sources that are conveniently available to me and I haven't seen anyone here argue that other sources have identified more. Your opinion at the AfD was just that--an opinion, possibly—no, probably—with compelling reasoning based on guidelines, with consideration of specific accomplishments or publications behind. But such reasoning was not offered along with the opinion, so I'm not sure if it's just general feeling that someone who's been in the trenches for 20-odd years is notable, or if Agder is a "highly prestigious" award or if Early Modern Culture Online is a "major well-established academic journal" in the subject area, or what other considerations may be determinative. ^Bongo_matic 15:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

the determining factors in most non-ovious AfD discussions in any subject are opinions. The key words we use "substantial" "authority" " reliable" are all non-quatitative. Myself, I'd certainly be in favor of a more quantitative categorical approach--not in order to reach fairer results, but to avoid discussions over topics which could go either way. One of the traditional values of a reference source is consistency, both consistent level of writing and consistent coverage, and Wikipedia notoriously has neither. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The opinions are supposed to informed by verifiable facts (e.g., "editor of X") used in conjunction with interpretations of guidelines ("X is a major well-established journal"). Of course, whether X is a major well-established journal, or whether an individual's (verifiable) contributions to a field if inquiry have had a "significant impact" are opinions. Your own thought process would be useful to me, anyway, and I'm sure to anyone else who stops by the AfD. ^Bongo_matic 16:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A Proscriptive Relationship and Jordan Lynde

Hi there! I'm not quite sure what's going on with A Proscriptive Relationship which has/has not been tagged for speedy deletion but still seems to be there. I decided not to complicate things by tagging it for AfD, given that the changes are all very recent and the article creator, User:Hazeleyes14 appears to be deleting tags. Thought best to ask you to have a look first, since you've already had eyes on it. Article on the young author, Jordan Lynde may need attention at the same time. I have to log off now but will come back later and see what's going on.--CharlieDelta (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right that the afd should decide, but the greater notability would be the author: if the author is found notable by the afd, which i doubt very much, then the book can be mentioned there, with a redirect. The article on the book was an absurdly promotional plot summary, and I re-deleted it at first, Even if the book itself were notable, it would not be acceptable, so I redeleted it.. Thanks for mentioning this here; I commented at the afd DGG ( talk ) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nova Science publishers

Could you please comment at WP:RSN#Communist crimes against humanity about Nova Publishers. TFD (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Self-assessment

Hello DGG - you may already be aware of this Foundation initiative, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Since you are a long-standing member of the Article Rescue Squadron and I don't think I'm the only one who'd like to hear your thoughts about it. Novickas (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sharon Gaber

DGG, unless I'm wrong, I don't think there is any kind of inherent notability in being a provost, and thus I don't see a credible claim to notability. If I am wrong, please point me in the right direction. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not say the person is notable: I said there is a sufficient claim to importance to pass A7, which is much less than notability. I think and continue to think that anyone who has a professorial rank or has written a non-self published book has some plausible claim to importance, whether or not they are actually notable being another question. (In contrast to, say, to some who asserts being a graduate student, which no reasonable person could think a claim to importance) Now, since such an appointment at most places is not a routine job, is the chief academic officer (which means they make the final decisions on new faculty appointments and funding and tenure), and normally goes to a senior full professor, one whom the others will respect enough to accept the decisions. At a research university like Arkansas, I'd say, that if investigated, there's a decent chance the person like any full professor will actually be notable through their academic work, though that's not at all a certainty, and needs to be shown. I'd never argue for keeping on such grounds, but it does pass a7. I suggest giving the author some time to find that information, before starting the AfD. I left a pretty clear note about the need for it. I could look myself, and if necessary, I will do so, but most of the time in such cases the ed. does the job themselves--they just need to be told what is required. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not about to start an AfD. I was tempted to use BLPPROD, but decided it was more fun to find some verification. Problem is, it's another one of those biographies that is a drag to put together from what meager sources an outsider can find, coupled with all the usual academic problems (database access, finding published works and reviews thereof). So I'm going to leave it be; with the one reference I added it won't be prodded. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite used to fleshing these out--I do two or three a week, and I wlll not forget to go back to this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Chinmaya.328

Thanks for your comments on User talk:Chinmaya.328 (though I'm not certain the editor even knows of the existence of talk pages). The user's other article, Themis Medicare, reminded me exactly of your recent comments on Wales's talk page about identifying when a PR firm has written something...a list of milestones, reference to the company being first at numerous things, etc. As a side note, I don't know (and maybe you don't want to make public) how your conversations with NoRaft went, but I support the idea of working with paid editors, not just blanket forbidding them (since we can't even do that successfully anyway). I honestly don't get why Jimbo thinks that such involvement is now and has always been forbidden and everyone knows that and no one disagrees. I totally accept that he opposes it, and even accept the idea that he/WMF can make a fiat rule against it, just not his idea that there is an obvious and overwhelming consensus that agrees with him. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that one--in fact, I would have listed it for deletion except that I saw you had worked on it. It's large enough that it might be notable, but whether I feel like doing the work for an article like that depends upon the factors of how important the company is & my opinion of the editor's good faith. I've had no conversations with NoRaft. I sent him an email, suggesting he privately & confidentially tell me who he is, & what articles he had written, but had no response. I will not do something potentially problematic with someone who hides his identity from me, any more than I go down dark alleys with masked strangers. I can see his problem, though--he's promised his clients confidentiality, and by our own rules I can't insist he tell me. Therefore, I shall do as always: any article he or anyone known or unknown asks me to look at on-wiki, I will look at and give my opinion and advice, on-wiki. I'll talk with even masked strangers in bright lit public places. I do not think Jimbo's ruling has literal consensus, but is rather one of the pious statements that nobody will openly challenge, but nobody will actually follow. It is even contradicted by his own statement of our basic policy, that anyone can edit. Anonymity has its benefits, but also its problems, and can lead to such paradoxes. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability of books

I would be glad of your advice on assessing notability of books. New user Demossoft (talk · contribs) has input a string of articles about books by a Lebanese author, Lina Murr Nehmé:

• 1453, Mahomet II impose le Schisme Orthodoxe (Worldcat shows it in 18 + 12 + 10 = 40 libraries)
• Baalbek, Monument Phenicien (5 libraries)
• La Douloureuse Passion de Jésus-Christ (5 libraries) (she provided historical notes)
• Prophéties de la Bible pour Le Liban Moderne (Arabic version in 1 library)
• Le Liban assassiné, lettre ouverte à Monsieur Sarkozy (not in Worldcat)
• Les otages libanais dans les prisons syriennes, jusqu'à quand? (not in Worldcat)

I have told him about WP:BK and about COI; others have PRODded two of the books, and Demossoft removed the PRODs with (not unreasonable) requests for more time.

The suspicion of COI and promotion makes me want to look hard at notability. Figures to the right are the number of libraries shown in Worldcat as holding the book. On that basis, the first passes the "dozen libraries" threshold in WP:BK#Criteria, but the rest do not. Depending on whether more references are produced, I am considering an AfD for all the books except the first. My questions are:

• Is the Worldcat library count the right measure to use against the WP:BK threshold?
• Any other ways to assess them, bearing in mind that they are in French?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, she is perhaps notable as an author, since two of her books are in many but not all of the major French university libraries, so an article on her and a merge seems reasonable. There's even an English language source, [3]. I agree with you the writing articles for even the really minor works indicates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. Normally people even with COI either write the author article first, or an article on one of the books, usually the most recent. As for library holdings, Worldcat gives the same as the French university Union Catalog, sudoc, [4]; I am not aware of any union catalog for French public libraries, and these are in any case, not the sort of books one would expect to find there, I often look for an additional indication of the importance of French academic books from German academic library holdings, which are more likely to do well than the US. I use the superlative German-based international union catalog, Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog KVK , which has an English interface, [5]. In this instance, almost none of her books are present there. I think however a thorough search would probably find reviews of her books--I think a thorough search would find reviews of essentially all academic books from major publishers, and if we took BOOKS literally every notable author would have some or all of their books separately notable, as would many non-notable authors. I just thought of a way to summarize my view of that guideline: books, as well as sports and popular entertainment, are among the things over-covered by the press, especially the coverage of academic books by academic journals, and so the GNG for these subjects is way too broad. To the extent Wikipedia:Notability (books) incorporates it as criterion 1, it is way too broad. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I shall try to explain things to the author. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See a review of her Mahomet book on a website, including a short interview with the author. This makes the thesis of the book look interesting although possibly fringe. The book is translated into both English and Arabic, which suggests there is a publisher who thinks the book will find readers. Surely there are reviews by historians if anybody knows how to find them. Not sure if this onefineart.com web site is a reliable source for anything but it could be an external link. Combining these separate articles on the books into one article on the author is probably best until the additional sources are found. The publisher of the Mahomet book, Francois-Xavier de Guibert, looks to be a mainstream French publisher. they are described as a Christian publisher in their small article on the French Wikipedia: fr:Éditions François-Xavier de Guibert. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree they're a mainstream publisher. As I cannot source by myself everything submitted to Wikipedia I tend to work on sourcing the ones I think most notable/important/encyclodia-worthy, or articles where interesting questions are raised in the AfD. And I regret to say I no longer have remote access to most of the humanities databases, so I need to be even more selective. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you did have access, what humanities database would you check? EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Asking for forgiveness is easier than asking for permission

I'm sorry, I used you as an example of different admin styles during an RfA here[6]. I certainly hope you don't mind. Have a good day :) Trusilver 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I had seen it yesterday; an appropriate & much needed comment in that RfA. However, in saying my editing is almost entirely related to admin functions, it might give the impression I don't do content editing. Rather, about 9/10 my effort is content editing—but on those articles I see in the course of admin functions, primarily articles I fix that would otherwise be deleted. I would be doing the same even if not an admin, & I asked for adminship in good part so I could more easily remove the ones I could not fix. Otherwise, I rarely use the buttons. I work primarily to help and teach the people who will write more articles, so my efforts are multiplied by the people I help stay here. That effect is the role of teachers & librarians in the world. That's what I was doing long before Wikipedia, & I think Wikipedia the best possible place in the world to do it: to teach people how to explain things to others. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

=

Investigative Newsource help

Hello, DGG... thank for your input on the Investigative Newsource page. I have cleaned up some minor formatting errors and am now looking at the formatting guidelines page for further information. I am new to formatting, so I will definitely ask for assistance if I hit a hurdle. Also, working on getting third-party information to increase the verifiability of the page. Again, thank you for your help :) Coconnel51 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thanks for your efforts to preserve articles about notable topics. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks again for pointing those things out, I still have got couple of questions, is there anyway we can get in touch Live ?? any IRC channel or gtalk or facebook or anything ?? Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

let's try email, at least first. You can email me from the link in the toolbox on the left. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I did read WP:CSD and got some idea cleared about few things, also wanted to ask you about these SkinnyGuyy, Nicholas_Crosby,Victor_Gurley_Jr and Sunil_Hirani. Are the CSD nominations for these alright or some thing should still be changed ?? Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot judge Skinny Guy. The assertion he received airplay is possibly a good faith statement of importance, but I don't know how credible it is. I have too little understanding of the subject to tell, and so I leave it to other admins to take responsibility for either deleting or de-speedying articles like this. Nicholas Crosby is a classic A7, there is no credible assertion of importance--but it was tagged G11, which does not really apply very closely--the subject just wants to express his own sense of his own importance. Many people confuse us with Facebook, and don't realize we're an encyclopedia, and this needs to be explained to them. I deleted the article and shall leave a note. Victor Gurley Jr. is interesting: the claim was that "Gurley Jr. had the potential to be a superstar athlete but was plauged by a season ending knee injury, which lead to the end of his career as a college football player" and the article was submitted by his college's athletic department. I do not think any competent PR staff can really believe that this is enough for an encyclopedia. I will need to follow up to make sure there are no other such articles from that source. If it had talked instead about a possible brilliant high school career, I would have considered it a credible claim, though not enough to meet actual notability. Possibly he was, but the article did not say so and the likelihood of an acceptable article is to small to be worth the checking. Sunil Hirani was tagged as G11, but I declined to delete it, and said "factual, not entirely promotional, rewritable by normal editing if he is notable, which is possible. If doubted, send to AfD" He's given as head of a $635 million company, which might well be notable. The article had a ref. from Crain's Under 40, which is a decent 3rd party source, though a little based on press releases and only partial proof of notability. The article simply described his career in purely factual neutral language. It was written somewhat in the style of a press release, using his full name too often, but that is easily fixable. If it had described without any specifics his superlative merits, but no actual facts, it would have met G11, because that would take total rewriting, not normal editing.

So you see that each one of these is worth some thought and some comment. Speedy is for what is incontestable, but almost always it takes a little consideration before deciding that. With experience it's possible to make a pretty accurate guess, and after ten thousand of these I can usually quickly figure it out--but there's always some reasoning that I can explain, and likewise any admin should be able to--we must be able to explain, because the contributors of these articles often question us, and we must at least convince them we're not wholly irrational or prejudiced, unlike what they often think.

The way I personally think of A7 is that the importance or significance referred to in A7 is basically any importance that any one in good faith would think makes the subject suitable for an encyclopedia--what I often call " encyclopedic importance". For example, to say someone is mayor of a small village is a good faith claim, and does not qualify for A7, but for prod--the new editor is simply not aware that we do not consider it sufficient. The claim that the subject is the best student in his junior high school is not an adequate claim--everyone even at that age ought to know that no possible encyclopedia would include junior high school valedictorians (& actually it seems most such articles are submitted by the parents, who certainly ought to know.) There are some admins who consider credible some assertions that I do not, and vice-versa, but this rarely causes actual problems because almost always such borderline cases would inevitably be deleted. Sometimes, of course, I and all other admins who are at all active here do make mistakes in both directions, and when asked, we correct them. Sometimes an admin has idiosyncratic views. If it starts affecting articles that might actually make it, it will be explained to them at deletion review, and they almost always understand after a few reversals.

G11, promotional, is trickier, because what would constitute fundamental rewriting is hard to say. I will sometimes go beyond that if I think the subject worth the trouble, but nobody is expected to. However, if it can be cured by simple deletion or stubbification, then it's not a speedy. Admins differ greatly in how they interpret this, and I would only rarely say that someone who made the opposite decision as I was definitely wrong. Occasionally I'll even rewrite copyvio from scratch if I think the subject is really important, but that takes serious work--if I see one and do not want to do the work, or do not have time to, then it must be deleted. Not all that many admins do that, but I enjoy actually writing once in a while. If I think the subject has potential, I'll explain to the contributor what they would need to do, and suggest they try again--and I hope any good admin would do so also, not just do the deletion. Sometimes the person who placed the tag explains well enough, beyond the over-general and rather useless advice in the standard tags, but I'll often add my confirmation, to reinforce the message. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess its time now to delete Hayagriva_Madhava_Temple since it clearly violates WP:G12 also no one is editing that page since its creation. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag removals

Hi DGG... perhaps I'm being overly sensitive but:

1. "I and other admins" must be untrue since that suggests three or more removals, when I only placed two speedy deletion tags.
2. I have read WP:CSD on several occasions and have re-read it now. While it mentions the criteria for speedy deletion, it doesn't mention the criteria for tagging something as SD. There is a short outline of what to tag as such on WP:NPP but does not mention any specific procedures. In particular, it does not state that it is required "that when you do place a speedy or other deletion tag, you indicate this in the article summary." However, I will do so in the future.
3. "president of a major company" - there is no article for that company on WP and I was also unable to find any reference to it via a major search engine.

On the other hand, I accept that being head of a major bureau of a major newspaper is clearly indication of importance and I was hasty in marking that article for speedy deletion.

New page patrolling is not the most interesting part of editing on WP - although occasionally I learn something interesting from new articles - but it is absolutely necessary. The tone of your note is a little abrasive, as though I'm trying to damage your website. Perhaps a little encouragement for people doing thankless tasks might not go amiss.

Incidentally, I'm never sure whether to respond to a comment on my talk page directly after the comment or on the commenter's own talk. Which is best?

FunkyCanute (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CSD, section 1, 2nd paragraph.

"Immediately following each criterion below is a list of templates used to mark pages or media file for speedy deletion under the criterion being used. In order to alert administrators of the nomination, place the relevant speedy deletion template at the top of the page or media file you are nominating (within <noinclude>…</noinclude> if nominating a Template: page). Please be sure to supply an edit summary that mentions that the page is being nominated for speedy deletion. All of the speedy deletion templates are named as "db-X" with "db" standing for "delete because". A list of the "db-X" templates can be found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates."

I added the boldface., Perhaps we should make it more prominent in the text, and say it on Deletion Policy elsewhere. I understand "be sure to" as meaning "it is required to". That wording can if necessary be clarified. And yes, it's a problem all over Wikipedia finding procedures and policies because they are spread out in multiple places.

I don't own speedy. No one admin does most of it. Discussions about it go on WT:Speedy, where you will see the general trend is towards making the requirements narrower, with which I heartily agree. An article wrongly deleted at a speedy can in principle be restored, but it almost always costs us both the article and the editor. Someone else may eventually write the article, but an editor who has a bad experience here will discourage others from even starting. An article not immediately deleted by speedy, will be deleted or fixed by prod or AfD, and if kept by these processes by chance or error, will have attracted enough visibility that someone will get back to it.

NPP is interesting, but difficult. The job of NPP is not just to remove junk, but to remove hopeless junk, nominate the dubious for prod or AfD, tag everything that needs fixing later, and explain clearly and personally to new editors who show any signs of becoming useful what they ought to be doing--not just posting the standard messages, which are over-detailed and non-specific. How quick one can go depends on what one works on. I can do one a minute if it's stuff that I don't have to write personalized messages for or carefully check contribution histories, or confirm in google, but anything else takes longer. I do a little sometimes at the end of the day to keep in touch with the incoming stream, and I've learned to do only a few at a time because otherwise the amount of trash inclines me to start deleting too much. I normally tag, not immediately delete, & I think it should be the rule for admins, but since it still isn't I do sometimes just remove. But normally I find problems in patrolling by catching the incorrect deletion tags. I became an admin quite specifically to do this, so I could check on what had been deleted also, as well as dispose of somethings quickly.

I think my message was terse, but neither rude nor condescending. Part of the terseness was due to just the effect I mentioned above in patrolling--I had previously dealt with a person doing considerably more errors, and it affected the way I was thinking. And I was influenced by the nuisance of having to check everything you edited to see the ones that were deletion tags, because of the lack of edit summaries. Anyone else who sees this is welcome to check & correct me on this.

as for the articles, I probably should have said, head of a possibly major company, going by reported size. "possibly" is enough to defeat speedy. And true, I should have said me and another admin. Usually when I comment it's with >2, so I just routinely typed it. It's not a prebuilt message, but my brain can work a little too much on internal automatic pilot without outside devices to accentuate it.

I probably should routinely say to answer on my talk page. Like many who have been here a while, my watchlist is too long to be useful. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for response. Appreciate the clarifications. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen you reference this essay

WP:TALKINGSOFASTNOBODYCANHEARYOU. Is my memory that faulty? I can't find it, and it's possible the syntax isn't precise. Did you use this a sort of irony? I seem to remember you used the link to represent bullying behaviors. I'm seeing one such user who seems to be wanting to turn the entire AfD process on its head by using such a technique. BusterD (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have sometimes used pseudo-links like these as a statement for their own sake, without writing an actual essay. I remember saying something like this, but I can't find it. I think this one was TALKINGSOMUCH... -- but I can't find it either. As for the problem, I've commented pretty extensively at AN/I: [7], and will comment at the RfC also, But please don't confuse the reasonable message, with which I am in agreement -- that Deletion Policy is overbalanced towards deletion, and one step towards rebalancing it would be to require some version of WP:BEFORE -- with the unreasonable way it is being over-expressed. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I was a debater in school before "talking so fast" became the current style. I feel anything which games the system deserves appropriate response in order to keep the system sound. I appreciate your valid concern about deletion procedures being over-weighted toward one outcome. Thanks for your valuable comments in those forums. Be well. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had forgotten that context. And so was I,in college--a very valuable experience, especially in facilitating the sort of intercampus experiences only the athletic teams otherwise gave occasion for. But the stimulus is interesting: if I take a turn at NPP, the amount of junk turns me for a while into a deletionist before I catch myself and stop being so unfriendly to all the newcomers. If I take a look at AfD, the number of unwarranted nominations makes me want to give a similarly snappy and unjust response to all of them, with the less than rational thought that if I argue against all of them, maybe there's a chance the good ones will make it. Several good inclusionists have run into trouble here falling into such temptation. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate your eyes on this one

Something about Relaxation Through Poetry is making my antennae twitch. Reads like a semi-promotional article but is not overtly promoting any particular company, although there is a rather spurious ref quoting a "counselor" in the last section. The article creator (a new SPA) has seeded links to his article into a range of Poetry related articles. It's inoffensive but feels "wrong" to me. I could send it to AfD but thought I would consult you first. Any thoughts?--CharlieDelta (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

it might be a psychological services company, but my thought was promotion for a book. However, I cannot find anything likely for either. Most PR from professional sources is better written. Note the use of a eye-catching, but unrelated, illustration. I think it's an essay, possibly a school essay--I've AGF, & queried the author for specific sources. I see we have no article on poetry therapy, the closest actual subject; I've made it a redirect to bibliotherapy. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Adam Schuck and Davina Reichman - another editor requied please

Hi DGG,

Even though ConcernedVancouverite states that they are a "concerned Vancouver citizen with a strong interest in local politics.", he instits on editing the article Adam Schuck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Schuck and the article Davina Reichman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman.

Please assist me in getting another opinion.

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

you will get opinions for Schuck at the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Schuck. I'll look at the Reichman article. The best thing to do with challenged articles is to add references; I see you've been trying to do so. CV is an experienced editor, though we do not always agree. I cannot see why anyone who lives in a city and is interested in local politics should be disqualified from editing other things also. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Military Families Speak Out

hello my name is Brendan and i am attending SCSU, I need a mentor and i would be very appreciative if you could help me in this arena. i am writing about Military Families Speak Out, a program dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyb2 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I gather the assignment is improving the existing article, which is much too promotional and does not have a NPOV. I've made some specific criticisms of it on the article talk p. Talk:Military Families Speak Out. If the question is how to proceed, I would first practice basic editing skills by removing words and phrases which do not belong or need to be replaced with more objective language. Then, I would look for references and incorporate them. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

request to create or add back a deleted page (with modifications)

Hello there, This is my first time using a talk page, so I hope I am doing this correctly. I just signed up with a new account. I work for a hospital listed here on Wikipedia and its page was deleted a couple years ago for "blatent advertising." Other hospitals in our state (California) and county (Butte) are listed so it seemed appropriate that we should also have information here. We are not a hospital system, just a single hospital and we're non profit and have been here for 100 years. I would be happy to edit the original page to make it more factual/historical (and remove anything that seems biased or like a COI) or create a new, pared down page. Would this be possible?

Thank you! EMC1913 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)EMC1913

I shall take a look at the article, and say something specific on your talk page, but remember that Wikipedia is not a directory, and we do not consider that anyone is entitled to an article. It's a question not of intrinsic importance, but whether the hospital has been written about in 3rd party independent reliable sources, After that, it's the need for an encyclopedia article being not about what you want to say to the public, but what someone in the public who has heard about the hospital in a general context might want to know; the article must not be directed primarily to prospective patients or donors--that's what we mean by promotional. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Femi Folorunsho

I see that you've undeleted the article. Though you gave a correct reason for your action, it appears that the creator has edited it after undeletion, and a comment I left on the talk page for the creator to see hasn't been taken into account. Could you undelete the talk page as well? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted. We could consider the title just an error--he naïvely put his name at the head of the paper. If the content were usable under any title I would have moved it to that title. But of course the contents is too unencyclopedic to be rewritable--I suppose I might delete it as a partial & inferior duplicate of Marriage if he does not understand? See if you can persuade him to withdraw it. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. This user seems knowledgeable, yet his contributions so far suggest that he's trying to make a name for himself and sell books he wrote. I believe we could have a great contributor once the WP:COI issues are ironed out. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Autobio

We have an AFD of Adam Taubitz, started as an autobio. Normally I'd have speedy tagged it but actually there appears to evidence he meets requirements. Your thoughts please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

doesn't matter who started it, since any person with a chair in the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra is notable, and he';s head of the section. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP Youtube personalities

Hey, am back with query once again, are youtube personalities notable enough to get on WP ? Please help me out over here GloZell_Green and check this message. Thanks. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

it depends , as always, on 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. Almost always all material about them is on the internet in the form of blogs of some sort; the question is then what sort of blogs count as reliable for the purposes of notability. In the past, Wikipedia has been notably restrictive in this, but as more and more other responsible sources appear in this format, things are changing. There's a subsidiary question in each particular case of whether the coverage in the references is substantial, but that's essentially the same question as with references in any media, and amounts to a question of judgement. Such judgements can depend not on the merits but on what one wishes to prove, since often each position can be justified. The prevailing attitude, which to some measure I share, is extreme skepticism. I summarize it by saying that for someone to be notable, they have to have actually done something notable -- in the ordinary meaning of the word.

but this case is simple with respect to notability: the deleted article on Green had no third party sources whatsoever. I doubt anyone who understands Wikipedia would support it at an AfD unless better sources could be found. However, it was deleted via A7, and the criterion for A7 is not notability, nor is it whether the article would be accepted into Wikipedia, but some reasonable indication or claim of importance. The question is whether the claims there are such. I consider them borderline. The person certainly thinks what they've done is important. I do not, but I can recognize that a person might think so in good faith. Myself, I might or might not have A7'd. Given that I know I have a prejudice against such careers, I might have passed on it & let some other admin decide. In any case, I have a standard practice for a questioned A7 speedy like this: first I give the fairest advice I can, which in this case is that without real sources it will surely be rejected in its present form, so it would be best to submit it again once there are sources; and then, if the person still wants me to, I undelete and send it to AfD (they rarely do, if I give the advice clearly enough). It's easier than arguing. If I was right, it'll be deleted, and there will be grounds for a G4 in case of the almost inevitable re-creation. (The only problem is that sometimes it might not be a good faith article, in which case the subject deserves to be protected against the negative comments at AfD. That's not the case here--they want the publicity. The previous speedy of a much sketchier version was deleted on A7 and G11, something I also do a good deal. I might have done that here.)

The case is not helped , of course, by the comparison that's made to Jenna Marbles, which has several good third party sources, and would almost certainly pass AfD. When someone says , but X has an article, there are three possibilities. Most commonly, X is famous, and then almost always the proposed subject is hopelessly non-notable & the claim is absurd—naïve but well-meaning editors argue this a lot, often for self-published authors. Also common, is that X is in fact borderline notable at best, and quite possibly should be deleted also—spammers often use this argument & there's an obvious course to follow, which usually stops their questioning, though it will hardly satisfy them. But, rarely, it is a reasonable protest: either we are generally inconsistent in the area involved, in which case it should go to AfD, to take its chances in the coin toss, or there actually was an error in evaluating X. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Your comments

The fact that Stone Sink Maintenance had been recently created, I thought putting a "Wikify" may help instead of tagged for AFD or Speedy. In the case of SGHS Rowing Club, the article wasn't a stub or other terribly written articles (i.e. "It's a club in Washington, it was founded in 1998") so again I thought I'd give it time. I've received complaints that I tag articles too quickly so I thought I'd take things slow, you can never please everyone. I do understand that in the fact of Mette Bach, the article could've used more work such as the sources were little but once again I thought I'd take it slow and give the user time. I suppose I'll take some time off as it seems I need to. You never responded this message of mine where I explained that even though she's a scientist, she still needs some biographical sources for notability and verifiability. In response to your suggestion of looking at my contributions, I do take a look at my contributions up to 3 days, but I can't spend all day going back too far. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not catching it earlier; as I've said many times: In the case of academics, the evidence that their work meets the standards of WP:PROF is an complete alternate to WP:GNG. The usual criterion is their being an authority in their subject, and this is shown by the citations to their work, as judged by what amounts to such distinction in their particular subject. The rule was adopted precisely because WP:GNG can be given the interpretation that two or more citations to their work that discussed it substantially showed their notability, and so I successfully argued a number of times before WP:PROF was fully accepted. Since about half of all published scientists meet this criterion, and it was agreed both by those interested in the subject and editors here more generally that this is much too broad for encyclopedic notability, an alternative was adopted, and the GNG criterion is not argued in this manner, but for the other ways in which any person can be notable--such as their work having substantial published discussion but no influence on actual science. The ultimate rationale is that notability means notability for something other than the routine facts of existence, and that this can be proven in whatever manner is appropriate for the subject. As an analogy, proof that someone competed in the Olympics is accepted as unquestionable notability, though nothing may be known about the person except the name and the country represented. (I think what I'm saying here has consistent consensus, for I know of no recent AfD to the contrary.). DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 05:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Case for SPI?

User:FouxSchizel and User:Darkknightzac have been using identical templates with similar appeals to admins not to delete articles. Do you think we should investigate? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

unless something else appears, perhaps not worth the trouble. DGG ( talk ) 11:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

NPP

Sorry I forgot the NPP link. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide

Please note that I have done a procedural close to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 9#Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide, and created a new discussion about the related category tree at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Category:Suicides by occupation. Feel free to express your opinion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

You left a comment at the infobox debate but it wasn't clear if you were !voting to keep or to have it deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

and I thought I was being unambiguous. My support for the infobox is totally unqualified, and very definite, to the extent I regard opposition to using an infobox in an individual case like this as unconstructive at the least, and more accurately termed disruptive. It's basic policy that we don't over-ride a general principle of article construction that has 99% general consensus without very special reason, which has not been demonstrated. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I commented on Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte but am asking here as well, as I don't know if you will recheck that page. Infoboxes are absent from many biographical articles on classical music composers and librettists. I can't swear there are none, but I checked dozens of articles and couldn't find any with Infoboxes. I also checked a number of biographies of performers and impresarios, and again found Infoboxes largely absent. This suggests, at the very least, that the use of Infoboxes is not as pervasive as you make it out to be.

I am not saying that a credible argument for them could not be made. But I am not aware of a "general principle of article construction" that requires Infoboxes "without a special reason", much less that has 99% consensus. Please direct me to it, if you can. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Projects have no authority in Wikipedia, except to the extent that the general consensus agrees with their decisions. Wikipedia is one encyclopedia , and should be consistent. One of the reasons for consistency is to avoid arguments like this, which could if permitted be carried through to any level of detail. The better course, would be to design an infobox more specialized to the needs of a subject; that's standard practice. If you want to challenge the use of infoboxes, start a general discussion on the topic. On that question of the overall merits, which I do not consider the current issue, my own personal feeling is that I dislike their crude appearance, as I dislike the crude appearance and colors of much of the interface--but I think the need for structured data is important to future development, and this seems the simplest way to get there. I think it's hopeless getting well-written articles with open editing, so we might as well get formalized ones to which everyone can contribute. But right now, what is really essential in the short term is the concentration on attracting and keeping editors, which requires all the work of everyone; the best decisions of style are therefore the simplest and the most universal, so the least effort is spent discussing them. Experience has shown we can have infinitely long discussions on even the most minute points of style. In many of them , I have my own preferences about even minute details which do sometimes do not agree with the general MOS. But it's more important to get it settled one way or another than to get it my way, or even to get it right.So I follow the general rule, and concentrate on the work that is important. Projects should not vary based on local preferences, but only when it's essential to the subject. Sure, 99% is an intrinsically rhetorical figure, but the principle holds. The proof of general consensus is that all the other subject areas for bios use them. Consonant to my own principles, having I hope made my views clear, I see no need to convince anyone & now close this discussion here. If we do have a general discussion, I'll repeat it there. I have learned that here more than anywhere else I have ever worked, I can but give my argument and let things take their own course. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you said you weren't going to reply, but as you didn't answer the question, I thought I'd ask it again: where is the documentation of the alleged consensus/policy in favor of Infoboxes? I haven't found any firm rule about them in Wikipedia, one way or the other.

If no such consensus exists, you are of course free to make the argument in favor of Infoboxes on any pages where you believe they are warranted. But if it is not policy, then it is disingenuous to say that those who disagree with you are being disruptive; they are just trying to make the article better (or to prevent it from becoming worse). Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The general consensus is demonstrated by the general use for articles on people. Guidelines are the rules for what we do; some are written, some are customary practice. (when written guideline and practice contradict each other, it represents a problem that must be resolved, but more often, like here, they complement each other). The written guidelines discuss how to make infoboxes. The uniform practice, which amounts to general consensus, is to use them for all types of people. You're saying that classical music ought to be an exception. There are 4 possible arguments for your position. One is that infoboxes should not be used at all, which was in fact the argument given by most of the people opposing the boxes at that page, but would need to be made more generally--and is there is very strong consensus otherwise. Second, that each project should be able to decide on whether or not to use infoboxes, a position which might have something more to be said for it, except for the general rule that the projects are not independent, and that any special rules they wish to apply must have the agreement of the overall community, Giving them autonomy in article style would be an argument that would also have to be made elsewhere, and I think the consensus would be very strong that we want to have a single encyclopedia with a single style, not a collection of separately organized subject encyclopedias. Third, that classical music at least ought to be different, as an exception to the general rule that we use infoboxes for people. I see your assertion of that, but no attempt to show that --the only reason I can imagine is that it is more dignified, which would seem utter snobbery. Making the exception would , like the first two, need acceptance by the entire community as well as consensus by those working on the project. I suppose you can try to make the argument, if you can find any reasons that people outside the project would accept. A 4th more radical position is that each particular page can decide all style questions on its own--and that the extremely local consensus there is against it. At the most, the consensus there is divided, but I think the general position for Wikipedia in general is extremely strong that the individual pages must follow the general style guidelines, even if everyone working on a particular page wishes to depart from it, they may no more do so than they might decide to ignore WP:N. All guidelines of course have exceptions, even for individual pages, but the presumption is against them. The burden of proof for anyone who wants to do something non-standard is to demonstrate why it is needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Die Reihe

An editor here insists on including the complete lists of contents of this publications. It is my understanding that this is against WP:NOT (specifically: NOTADIRECTORY), but as the other editor says, there is indeed no specific wording there about tables of contents. What do you think? --Crusio (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

normally this is non - encyclopedic content; I've seen this for some other humanities journals also. But there seems to be a special justification here: we could include in a journal article information about publications in it by especially famous authors, and many of these certainly are in that category--that Stockhausen and Boulez and Cage and Stravinsky published here is relevant content: perhaps it should be reorganized into a listing of notable authors & their contributions. (More often, I've seen this more usually in articles about books, where it sometimes has a better excuse as a convenient way of explaining the topics). Please copy over this suggestion. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the discussion is not very fruitful and User:Jerome Kohl insists on listing the full tables of contents (of both the English and German versions of the journal). Perhaps you can participate directly in the discussion on the talk page? --Crusio (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll get there, probably tomorrow~

• Headbomb came by and things seem to have been arranged now. It's become quite a good journal article (thanks to Jerome Kohl once he was convinced to leave out the TOC). --Crusio (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

+1

+1 on the vulgar jokes discussion! SarahStierch (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been waiting some years now for the balance to shift on this to the point where we could take action. . DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Nolelover's talk page.
Message added 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ohio politicians

Hopefully you agree that the Deletions of Ohio politicians is undeniably harmful. Could you see that these pages are reinstated? Or, at the very least, recreated as stubs? As long as they are represented it's ok. Please look at the dozen or so members that are red linked on the Ohio House of Representatives as well as frank Larose and Scott oelslager in the Ohio senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.199.28 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think deletion on the sole basis of the contributor being banned or blocked not generally a constructive approach to the encyclopedia. But considering that in this instance the contributor was known for multiple copyvio—and multiple socking to introduce yet further copyvio—I do not feel justified in undeleting the material without checking it all, and it preferable should be written afresh by someone else. Yes, I urged the editor who placed the deletion tags if they wouldn't do better to simultaneous write new stubs [8], and I myself would not have either tagged or deleted them without doing that. I'm sure someone will rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's another sockpuppet. That was very quick of him to realize those articles were missing. Marcus Qwertyus 23:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

of course it was--my second sentence was worded to indicate that I realized that. Rather than just say so, I decided to give them a good faith answer, in large part because the answer is of some general relevance. Our rules about removal of content just encourage this sort of behavior--we're playing their game, and whack-a-mole is a game they can never lose, except by growing out of it. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That was a nice thing you did

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For taking the time and trouble to explain to Frwrldpce why his articles were deleted. Many reviewing admins would just have hit the delete button and been done with it, but you went the extra mile. Yunshui (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For finding a way to clearly and concisely explain what was to some invisible and to others so obvious that they couldn't find the words on Wikipedia_talk:Civility. causa sui (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply requested

Please see here I'm assuming that you aren't watching that page and I would appreciate your continued input. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

200 Greatest Israelis

Hi. I think this was wrongly deleted. in fact the AFD shows a lot of strong keeps and I think it should have been ruled as a no consensus. Can you restore it to my user space and I'll try to source it? I don't see why it would have been any less notable than the other lists at AFD,♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to ask Beetlebrox; I think he will userify it without difficulty. The inconsistency between AfD decisions is unfortunate, but the alternative of following strict precedent would have deleted all of them on this basis of that first one. My advice is to wait a few days until most of the others will probably have been kept, and then ask Beetlebrox to move it to mainspace after you have revised enough to meet the objections--working on the basis that the objections were valid. It will be simpler than deletion review, which is almost as unpredictable as AfD . DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian temple problems

I thought I'd drop a note here as you've dealt with some of the Indian temple articles I tagged for CSD (G12). I'm seeing a nasty pattern in these articles, and have requested help for investigation at Village pump. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DRV Tidy Trax

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE NAME. 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. Vaio12343 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Tidy Trax Article was created for the use of members joining in and editing, people seem to be using personal Gaines they have gained as they requested a speedy deletion, the speedy deletion was requested as a result of the Wiki member being to lazy to want to participate in WIKI, If they Do not want to participate in Wiki then they should be deleted

I already commented there, an half hour before you sent this. If you want to oppose my opinion, do so at the Deletion Review page where others will see it. The person who requested the deletion is a very well established contributor, as well as at least one of the people commenting, and the admin who closed it. I see no indication that they were acting in other than perfect good faith or have the least conflict of interest. You, on the other hand, seem from your user page to have a very clear conflict of interest, and are using this to further an outside legal dispute. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Arts Tasmania

Hey, just a note to say that I have blocked this person. Their username was a violation and reviewing their use of article space and userspace it seemed apparant that they weren't looking to contribute anything positive to the project. However, I may be wrong and feel free to shoot me for it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 02:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is some dispute about it; myself, I see no reason to block unless the contributor insists on using his original user name, which was not the case; others however disagree, and block as a matter of course. I deal with the disagreement about the proper steps to take by not routinely unblocking if another admin has blocked, and hope similarly that nobody will block if I decide not to, unless of course the situation deteriorates. Normally, if I do not block when I delete the page and give a warning--which i customarily call either "explanation" or "advice", it is because I do not intend to block, not because i have simp-ly forgotten. Ideally, just as I do not interfere with another admins blocks, I similarly expect not to have someone blocked after I have considered the situation and decided not to block. But perhaps that's not clear, and in such cases, I probably would do better to leave an explicit note. But not a big deal either way--I generally do not complain or necessarily notice when another admin reverts me, explicitly or implicitly--there's too much else to do

However, what I quite frankly consider wrong about what you did--and some other admins do it also--including one or two of my best friends here, so please do not take it personally--is to hard block in these situations. A person naïvely introduces a COI promotional article, but that does not necessarily mean they are incapable of doing one properly. Most of our articles about organizations are in fact written originally by people with some degree of COI, where the article is either fixed, or the person has learned to do it properly. Many do not learn, but some do. The ones who are too arrogant or too foolish to learn, get blocked, and I have no hesitation in doing it--even hard-block, if they have used sockpuppets. After all, our standard advice to people using improper usernames is to abandon them and use a proper name, and how are they to do it if their ip is also blocked? we normally give people second chances--sometimes even third and fourth chances also. It is better to have to go back and be more sever after initially not being severe, than to be unreasonably severe to a new editor.

And there is something else: it is generally considered incorrect to also block the talk page, except for people who abuse it, and there were no signs this person did.

So I think it is appropriate to change those two settings. In order to avoid confusing the user, I shall do so now; I doubt you will disagree, but if you do, we can discuss it. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, you gort it right. Sorry for the confusion. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

DGG, did you mean to block account creation? I can't tell if that was a mistake, or intentional, so I won't change it myself. I didn't see the discussion above, so I left a redundant note on Panyd's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, upon re-reading your comments above, I'm fairly confident you were not trying to prevent them from creating a new account, so I'm going to change that setting. My apologies if I misunderstood. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Education Under Fire & Bahai Institute for Higher Education

Dear Sir: I have added two recent articles regarding the BIHE as you recommended, and will await your suggestions regarding perhaps getting the Education Under Fire initiative published. We do have a letter written by the Iran Country Specialist of Amnesty International USA which sponsors the film and urges the public to view hte film and take action. I humbly await your response,

With Warm Regards, Josephine

Frwrldpce (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Greetings. This was tagged for speedy deletion literally minutes after I created it .. I was in the process of updating and was faced with the speedy request after I saved the new data.

I would appreciate more understanding and guidance as I am new to this and I was slowly providing more info, Third party links and so on

I understand the vast information and contributions that you have to deal with on a daily bases. I hope this deletion is reviewed.

The subject of this matter is a world renowned Organ Transplant surgeon who has held various government ministerial offices for many years.A founder of the national Organ transplant program. a founder of many scientific boards..he has been a Public universality Dean for many years. he is a Lead organizer of many nonprofit social awareness and outreach programs including immunizations to parts of Africa. his work and scientific experiments are all over the internet.TV. and Newspapers. He has improved the quality of life of millions of people. his work and publications are a notable contribution to the scientific community in the field of medicine.

I believe this topic qualifies for publication in more ways than one and it follows Wikipedia's guidelines

Kind Regards

Edit: I have read your advice on my talk > I did not read it before or knew such page existed, as I mentioned I am new to this. to add to the above . I will take notice of your advice and try to re post accordingly. Please let me know what you think and I would appreciate any help you can provide. Kind regards

(Jimspana (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC))

Right, let me know when you've done the article and I will take a look at it. There's no rule that you get it right the first time. Remember to avoid adjectives of praise. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Workable Words: Deep Words For Simple Living By Sterlin Sookoo

Hello There DGG

I will not be writing this article again and I would like you to completely remove the title as well for this page

The title reads:

Workable Words: Deep Words For Simple Living By Sterlin Sookoo

Please remove everything completely just like the contents were removed. I appreciate this so much. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGoodReviewer (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the talk page also. You are free yourself to edit your user page to remove any and all comments there. But I urge to you continue to write for us--pick a book of best seller status for which you have in hand reviews from 3p such as magazines and newspapers, and write an article. Or write one on an author who has published several such books. Just describe the subject neutrally and give references for the reviews and prizes and awards. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk page deletion: Talk:Remzey Samarrai

Hi! Guess you must have been distracted, as you missed deleting Talk:Remzey Samarrai when you deleted the main article. Anyway, it's done now. Stephen! ^Coming... 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for catching it. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

About those paragliders...

Regarding your comment in closing the AfD for the paragliding-fatalities "article", you said "I do agree with a comment below that that main article on the sport is written in non-neutral terms, almost promotional." I'm afraid that's because User:Joefaust, who created the deleted article (and a couple of other related articles, also at AfD) edited it to slant the whole thing to his POV, which is...well, let's be charitable and call it "different". (AfDs here and here help to illustrate the problem.)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

well, yes, that sort of writing is usually by a single person. The solution to this, just as for most problems at Wikipedia, is increased participation. The principle of Wikipedia is crowd-sourcing, and it doesn't work without lots of people. But I think it more tactful to wait until the present articles at AfD get deleted. I did say I would work on it, but all I can do on this subject is copy-edit. (Actually, when I first saw that article this morning, I even thought about G11--but the basic structure of the article is usable. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Biology journal

Your edit of August 14 creates a self link within the Royal Society page. I don't recall how this is normally addressed -- maybe unlink the name until a free-standing article is justified? Technically, the journal has begun publication. Its first and only article appeared in September: Glover D, Holt C, Johnson L, Parham P. 2011 Introducing Open Biology. Open Biol 1: 110001. DOI link. More info at Talk:Open Biology#First article has appeared. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

That isn't exactly an article, just an editorial statement of purpose. The simplest thing to do is to leave it alone a little longer. This was a compromise: my own opinion remains that a journal from the RS is notable the day it's announced--is notable even if it ends up not being published, I'll check again to see if there are some 3rd party refs yet, to satisfy those who think they are essential. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article

Hello,

An article I posted very recently was deleted very quickly under the tag that it was "promotional." The article pertained to stigma identity management in the workplace, and I was wondering if you could provide a better explanation of why this article was removed so quickly. I read through Wikipedia's guidelines for an article before posting, and I do not believe the article was correctly placed under the label "promotional." Any feedback you can provide is much appreciate. Thank you.

IdentityManagement (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Among other things, I noticed your user name. Are you in some way connected with a group offering some related service? As the term you used for the title, "Stigma Identity Management", is not standard, and you wrote it in just that way, with initial capitals, I made the assumption you were promoting such a service. What does seem to be relatively standard is the term stigma management. I think what I shall do is restore it under that title, and you should select a different user name having no relation to the subject of the article, and continue working on it. OK? DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. The only reason the username is so related is that this article has been a group effort such that multiple people could access the account working on this article at once. However, I will henceforth work on it from my personal account to avoid any confusion. Again, thank you for your consideration, and I can assure you that the article will be updated periodically over the next week or so. IdentityManagement (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Outside comment - You said, "such that multiple people could access the account working on this article at once." Wikipedia doesn't allow accounts with multiple users. Do other people have the password to that account besides yourself? If so, that one should be blocked and each of your colleagues needs to register their own separate account. See Wikipedia:NOSHARE. Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. You placed a notice on the article saying you knew Wikipedia notability guidelines--but notability guidelines are not the rules that matter here. That account ha now been blocked by another admin, and had it not been, I would now block it. Everyone who wishes to edit must select another account, individually. (The group editing does account for one of the key problems with the article, that each paragraph seemed disconnected.) But when you say that this was a group name, are you an academic class? For classes, we have a regular system of help provided, including not just consultation and on-line help for the editors, but assistance with class instruction on how to write here effectively. in part to avoid problems with deletion of class projects in their formative staged. I am one of the Education program ambassadors for the NYC region, and if you are in this region, I can arrange for assistance or perhaps do it myself; if you are located elsewhere, I can refer you to the appropriate person. For information see WP:Ambassadors DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipeda: The Musical - class?

Hey there - you've got an impressive user page. This Saturday at Wikipedia: The Musical - are you intending on just researching, or do you want to teach a class? Ssilver has also expressed interest in teaching a class. Let me know as I can facilitate use of the training room -- kosboot (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope to teach, and indeed I do like to present, but teaching can also be done by helping individuals. I gather there's a planning meeting tuesday, and I expect to attend it. Perhaps Ssilver should be invited to it also. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you're the one coming with Pharos. I offered to show Ssilver the training room beforehand, but he said that he won't be available before 10/22. So I can show you and you can help show it to him. See you Tuesday. Btw, enter through the Amsterdam Avenue entrance (not the main Lincoln Center entrance). -- kosboot (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

uw templates

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you and I with our combined experience could go a long way to help develop this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

slowly

I explained the capitalization before. Please note that both Worm and Du acknowledged that my capitalization followed a convention in computer programming. Geometry guy noted that Worm and I both miscapitalized and abbreviated his name.

I don't believe that I have doubly capitalized Du's name since I was alerted to his onomantic concerns.

Somebody complained about my writing of HMWT's name. "OE" is the spelling of the lost English vowell, which is still used in Nordic languages. I do not have a Swedish keyboard at present, and I shan't waste my time on hunting for a non-English vowel on English Wikipedia.

Have you considered becoming an administrator on Wikipedia?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that last line a sincere question, your universal response ( intended to indicate anyone can become an admin), or an intended put-down? I'm not one of the people who care what is said to me, but I do care what is said to other people. DGG ( talk ) 12:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a shortage of administrators.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

personally, I think we have more than enough in total, but what there is a shortage of is careful admins who deal with newcomers patiently. ~

Hi again!

There seems to be progress here, and at the RfC, where Worm did note that, at times, others drew first blood before I retaliated (retaliated or "escalated" in his words).

Regarding your RfC comments, we disagree about several things. You want me to treat children or young men as equals, but then you state that I should give them special dispensation. (I agree with the latter: It should not be hard to find examples of my being especially kind to youth, in one case by stopping him from helping me in a dispute.)

Regarding my comment to WTT, whose diff you provided: He is an adult, and has not objected to my dealing with him directly, or at least acknowledged that I do not treat him as a child in previous disagreements.

Don't you agree that he would have prepared his RfC with greater care, and deleted its opening, if he had followed my advice to consult with somebody more experience? I think that integrity and true collegiality required that I advise him before the RfC and then remind him of my advice (when he failed to follow it, at cost to both of us). It is obvious that he doesn't have experience in politics or interest in debates, or he would not have written such an RfC. Particularly in politics, experience is necessary for virtuous conduct: Teenagers capable of effective political action are almost always children of politicians or politically active organizational leaders.

Would you please consider the concern that you and others are effectively enforcing Jante law?

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Education Under Fire - Baha'i Institute for Higher Education

Dear DGG: I've added the citations you suggested as well as a new article citing the sentencing of the BIHE professors. I still need to put in the "recognized religions" - have to verify that and will add it shortly. You see, I work full time in addition to helping with this initiative, so I am sometimes not as quick as I would like. Do you think there is a possibility to add the Education Under Fire initiative? As always, you help is genuinely appreciated.

Best Regards,

Josephine--Frwrldpce (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I adjusted your external link, and will adjust the references. But to actually include a section, we need specific references to the campaign or the video from 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ping about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing

Hi! If you still have suggestions for any of the 9 listed as "in-progress" at WP:UWTEST, please drop a note on the talk page for that template. We're going to start the new test now and would rather not change the templates in the middle, but it's easy to do a new test or simply incorporate changes afterward, since all we need is a week or so of data. I'm interested to see what you'd like to do, because my feeling is "the shorter the better" on these warnings. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Network for Better Futures

Thanks for reviewing the page I attempted to post on The Network for Better Futures. I will work on rewriting it to meet the guidelines you suggested soon. When I'm ready, how do I repost the page? Thanks for the help. JDBurget (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)JDBurget

I have started the page User:JDBurget/The Network for Better Futures for you. When done, ask me here to have a look at it. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Enterprise Associates

Roger David - I came across a deleted page for New Enterprise Associates which you seem to have speedily deleted because of issues with content. I am not sure what the content of the article was but this is among the largest and most notable venture capital firms in the US. It was founded 30 years ago and has $6 billion of assets under management. Additionally, there are several dozen articles on wikipedia that mention NEA. I would appreciate your help restoring whatever content was available (so long as it is not unsalvageable) to start a stub that can progress. Thanks |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I may have been going too quickly--the language was full of promotional adjectives, but they can be removed. I shall restore it, & make a few changes, but see suggestions on the article talk page for further improvements. To start with, your statement of asset size does not match what was in the deleted article. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Way to track IPs?

I was over on the Richard English, writer and entrepreneur deletion page and I noticed some of the "keep" arguments were by people who had signed up just to vote on the entry. It's possible that they are people independent of the author who were not asked to vote here, but I can't help but get the sneaking suspicion that it's the author and/or people he's sent here to submit "keep" arguments for the debate. Is there any way of verifying this? I didn't want to say this on the AFD entry without a way of finding actual proof. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

I've added the {{spa}} template after those editors' contributions, so the closing administrator will be in a position to discount the opinions proffered. ^Bongo_matic 08:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTV's Oddities

Hiya, DGG. I stumbled upon this particular AfD, and I think it could merit an opinion from someone more in-tune with WP:TV than myself. I don't know if this sort of stuff is considered appropriate for the main Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television page or not, or if there's a sub-board or sub-sub-board or somesuch. Sorry to bug ya! Badger Drink (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

while an afd is open, the afd is a good place for discussion.As a general matter, it is best to put discussion on a fairly generally watched page, unless the matter is narrowly specific. But I am curious about what led you to think that I have any particular interest in TV? DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not terribly active in AfD, and when trying to think of AfD regulars who generally provide good rationales, your name came to mind. Terribly sorry for the offense I seem to have caused. Badger Drink (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

not the least offense, just pure curiosity, because one of the things in the world I am least interested in is television. I do find myself discussing such topics anyway, but when I do I try to say I'm giving a general opinion based on our general practice overall, not on practices of the workgroup, or the specifics of the article. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you stepped in it...

Hi DGG, thanks for stepping into the situation at Talk:Abdullah_Ibn_Saba. If you have a chance for a more thorough review, I'd greatly appreciate it. The biggest issues seem to surround claims of WP:OWN, POV, BIAS, improper use of sources (content not supported by sources) and so on. This has caused the content removal that Wiqi55 is complaining about and mischaracterizing as "misleading edit summaries" full well knowing that multiple aspects of his proposed content is in dispute, and may be against multiple Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. I am trying to objectively review each... but an outsider's opinion would be greatly appreciated, especially as I have followed other incidents where Wiqi55 was found to be POV pushing and trying to justify such with hiding behind various guidelines and policies. Doing my best not to let that affect my opinions on the matter regardless. Anyway, you've stepped into a small little nightmare - for which I thank you. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall comment there, with some suggestions for how to go about resolving it, based on how various people have handled similar situations elsewhere. What I am not going to do , at least now, is give an opinion on how it ought to be resolved. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

the most neutral and obvious and necessary suggestion I could devise (not using the word "alleged" in the lede sentence) having been disputed, I have stepped out of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Integrity Media/Integrity Music

Hi, I'm interested in stripping this article of promotional content and restoring it. Chubbles (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

what 3rd party published evidence have you of "together, Integrity Music and INO Records are the top independent labels in the Christian music marketplace. " with respect to Integrity Music? Without it, you can't show notability & there wouldn't be much point in rewriting just to get it deleted at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't write that sentence, don't particularly like it and wouldn't reuse it. I don't think it's necessary to show notability anyway - that statement's just peacocking. Integrity Music has a roster of notable musicians (probably not as many as INO, but beside the point), and its business dealings are significant enough to attract attention in the Christian music press, e.g. HM Magazine's coverage here. Chubbles (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm restoring it to mainspace: , and I'm counting on you to work on it. It's relatively difficult here getting people to accept the notability of a publishing or distributing company or label based upon having notable artists, but another good reference like that one you mentioned would do it. As far as that sentence goes, it is not necessarily something to be eliminated--it would be a useful one if it included quantitative sourced data on market share, instead of just assertions. BTW, I presume it distributes the relevant parts of the SONY and timne-Life labels, not their entire catalogs? I did some preliminary editing to get things started. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Balabin

Hey DGG. I'm inclined to agree with you regarding your comment in the AfD discussion assuming the other article has reliable sources but I can't find the subject on another Wiki. Did you find it somewhere is your argument based on the assumption that it actually is on another Wiki? I assume it's on the Russian Wikipedia but as they use a different alphabet, I'm having trouble finding it. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

its based on coverage in the Catholic encyclopedia. Whether another Wikipedia covers someone will be relevant information, especially on a national subject, but does not determine ours--for one thing, the different Wikipedias have different standards, and further, they make mistakes just as we do. But what I did not see is that it was not the Catholic Encyclopedias I am familiar with, but assuming the Russian one is genuine, it counts. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC) .

The article is a very close translation of the RU wikipedia article, ru:Балабин, Евгений Петрович. I linked to it, and will comment in the AFD. --GRuban (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox character

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox character. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

CSD discussion

DGG, it appears that no one has informed you of the discussion at WT:CSD#A public company listed on NASDAQ is speedily deleted from Wikipedia?. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

commented there. The question of whether to regard as NASDAK listing as an assertion of importance appears to be undetermined, unless the talk there reaches consensus. I assumed it did not so count, any more than a self-published book, but I may possibly be wrong. The relevant article has been restored, at least for now. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Police Community Support Officer

Hello. It appears to me that, whilst attempting to move a page over a redirect, you have accidentally deleted the article instead of the redirect. That is the only way that I can construe the logs for that page and the comments on Talk:Police Community Support Officer which indicate that this redirect was previously an article. James500 (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not know just what went wrong or why, but I fixed it doing the necessary steps manually. There are a number of double redirects to be fixed, but I think the bot will soon fix them. Thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad move?

I think you may have wanted to move Lee Ryder to the userspace of User:XXX Pink Narcissus XXX rather than the non-existent User:Narcissus XXX. You may wish to leave a note on their talk page as that is an alternate account and likely not closely monitored (by the user). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for correcting my misreading. I have moved it, to User:XXX Pink Narcissus XXX/Lee Ryder But I do not know who is the main account; if you do, please notify them. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ralph W. Moss (writer)

This is up for AfD. Since you opposed the prod, thought I'd best tell you. That said, I think that our differing reads on this have to do with sources 4-6: note that these don't even mention Moss; they're merely to present the scientific mainstream. Without those, the article looks much worse. 86.** IP (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks; as you recognize, my decline does not necessarily mean I will !vote for keep, I want to hear what others say, and look further myself. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

well I did take a look, andI found he had written a book on the NYT best seller list. My different read initially dealt with the implication of membership on the NIH alt med board, but atthe moment it is based on the half-dozen additional references I found rather trivially in G news archive. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

IP

I've been using this more than I originally intended. Honestly, that's mainly so that there's not confusion if I DON'T log in for whatever reason. 86.** IP (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. Perhaps you might want to adjust your wording to reflect that. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Golden

I'm an admin and I would support courtesy blanking. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

so I will, tomorrow, because I think it reasonable people in the discussion should see it first. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments re: Peoples Movement Assembly article

Would you be interested in revisiting the "Peoples Movement Assembly" article to provide feedback as to whether your concerns regarding clarifying the methodology (and, as such, that not any group can use it) and the general tone of the article? Septima2011 (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs

Hi DGG. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Article for "Ram Kumar Verma"

Just wanted to notify you that a article already exists for Ram Kumar Verma under the name of "Ramkumar Verma".It had certain issues regarding citations and sources,but I have added certain sources from google books and also tried to include ISBN numbers,infoboxes. Quite obviuosly this person has also been awarded Padma Bhushan ,India's third highest civilian award in 1963 (source from-->Padma Bhushan Awards (1960–1969). But again the name mentioned earlier in the list of awards was "Ram Kumar Varma".I also had to change the name in the awards list.Hope that I have not made any mistake. Vivekananda De--tAlK 06:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Napier

This is to inform you that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Napier. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

List of fictional universes

Your comments at the 2007 AfD for this article were cogent - you pointed out that a category can't provide any context, but this list can. The concerns about it being poorly defined were never addressed, and the article is really a mess; it's completely unsourced and includes many entries that aren't clearly fictional universi at all. Could you help establish some criteria for what belongs? I seem to be the only one participating on the talk page recently, and I think you have the know-how to point me in the right direction for article improvement.--~TPW 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume you have no interest, or no time, else you would have responded by now one way or the other. Thank you anyway.--~TPW 15:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

quite the opposite. How to do this coherently is a complicated problem, and I started thinking about it yesterday and decided to ask some advice of some non-WP friends also. I will try to comment by tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is making it so noone else can edit this page

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ralph_W._Moss_(writer) - Some idiot added google to the spam blacklist. Not your fault, of course, but would you mind if I deleted the links until such time as it's fixed? 86.** IP (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind; someone else changed it to direct links to the material. Didn't know there were such. =) 86.** IP (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello DGG! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Journal of foreign relations

Huh.. that's interesting... yesterday, the description field on the facebook page was identical to the wikipedia article, this morning that has been replaced by a single line. I guess they feel the text is more valuable to them advertising on wikipedia? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

However.. should be deleted immediately as a CSD-12 as there is no version without the copyvio (and indeed, expect for one line the whole text is a copyvio) with no prejudice against someone writing an article from scratch without copyvio. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

well, that explains the puzzle. I knew how unlikely it would be that you would have made such an error, but I didn't think of looking back. I suppose they could have written the Wikipedia first, or simultaneously, but for an article like this I'm not about to grasp at straws. Often I rewrite such journal articles myself if I think there is any reason to ==they are often not intentional copyvio, but shortcuts or ignorance, and very easy to rewrite to a stub. This doesn't seem worth the effort. Since it had already reached AfD, I closed it as a speedy delete for the copyvio. Thanks for the careful follow up. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wojciech Nawrocki

Dear DGG,

I noticed that you removed the CSD template from the article Wojciech Nawrocki. Maybe I was wrong in tagging it that way. Of course Widzew Łódź is a renowned football club in Poland's first division. My problem is just, that I could not find anything at all to verify that Mr. Nawrocki indeed played for that club. A google search delivered no results (apart from a Tai Chi-instructor with that name...) and he is not even mentioned in the Polish wikipedia article for Widzew Łódź. That's why I considered CSD A7 to be applicable. But I see your point, that the article, while perhaps lacking notability, does at least claim such relevance.

Regardless of the CSD, in my opinion, the criteria for BLP PROD are fulfilled. Before placing this, more appropriate, tag, I wanted to hear your opinion on that matter.

Thanks in advance!

Phileasson (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, not being able to verify is an excellent reason for deletion, and BLP Prod is the method designed for that purpose. When I decline a speedy for which Prod is appropriate, I normally do add the tag myself: I would certainly have placed it here, except that I had to leave immediately & couldn't try verify (my normal method is to check both google and the club web site). ( That a person is not in their national language Wikipedia is not always a good test, as each of them have different standards, and often a person in a country with a different primary language may for various reasons add an article here instead--but certainly it was a very good idea to check thee, for there might well have been a substantial article from which at least references could be used.) The alternative to BLP Prod is db-hoax. I'm reluctant to use it outside something impossible or at least wildly excessive--the CSD rule says obvious hoax, & a hoax that takes research is not obvious. BTW, it's very helpful to us admins if, when you do negative search--which is always a good idea when relevant, you say so in the deletion reason or edit summary or talk p.,saying what you checked--then we know where to start, or know not to even try. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advise. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Phileasson (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Girl gamer

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Girl gamer. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at WT:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz.
Message added 08:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Worm^TT · (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Logic#Principle_of_explosion_and_my_RfC--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

University of Toronto Wikipedia's Canada Education Program Help

Hello Mr. Goodman, My name is Matthew and I am a student in the Master's of Information program at the University of Toronto in the Knowledge and Information in Society course. I found your profile on the online ambassador page which our instructor directed us to. We had to choose an article and contribute an edit to it. I chose information infrastructure and added some sections to the article. I would be grateful, if you could take a look at it and offer some suggestions, because I am new to Wikipedia.

Thank you, Matthew In4matt (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I will get there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I'm looking forward to reading your suggestions, In4matt (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)