User talk:DGG

I am available a little less than usual, due to follow up from a now resolved family emergency.

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

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

Archives: Sept-Dec 06, Jan-Feb 07, Mar-Apr 07, May 07, Jun 07, Jul 07, Aug 07, Sep 07, Oct 07; Nov 07, Dec 07, Jan 08 Journal talk , Speedy talk, IPC talk,

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

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

---

Blood libel

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

columns

Use

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

Or

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

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

SPARC

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

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

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

Contextual information

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

Actual usage of the European Library by librarians?

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

Congratulations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notability of scientists vs their science

Hey DGG (first off, congratulations on adminship). In this AfD you write "I cannot imagine that a paper written by a scientist could possibly be notable more than the scientist himself" which seems diametrically opposed to my thinking, so I thought I'd invite you to try entertaining it. If a scientist is notable (in the sense of passing WP:PROF) I would assume it is because their work is notable. Surely then they must be at least a degree more trivial than their work. For example, the Hershey-Chase experiment is a very important piece of science, which definitely belongs in an encyclopedia, but I'm not sure that Alfred Hershey or even more so Martha Chase are of the same level of notability. Similarly, Milikan's Oil-drop experiment important in a way that I just don't think the details of Robert Andrews Millikan's life are. Ditto Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority Study and Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment. In all these cases, the experimenters are certainly notable, but I think they are all less encyclopedic than their work. I guess this is what bothers me about the majority of the stubby little wikipedia entries for assorted professors, that their inclusion makes WP look like a cheap Whos-who unless their work is also encyclopedic. The writers of these bios seem disinterested in writing encyclopedic articles about their research topic, the benefit to WP of these articles does not extend to dissemination of knowledge about science, just the vanity, or vanity by proxy, of a puff-biography. Anyway, best of luck with the mop pushing. I'm certain that you'll do fine. Regards, Pete.Hurd 05:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, & I went back & adjusted the AfD comment,because you are right that I overgeneralized. Fuller reply in the works. DGG 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

i'd appreciate your opinion on something

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

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

Yes please about citation count

Please yes a citation count would be good. I suspect the count will be high. Wenocur's major work includes the VC-paper, joint with Dudley which established values of VC-dimensions using hyperplanes and other techniques that were new. The paper with Salant is notable work. Her work on order statistics was new. in abstracting ideas of Einstein and Bose on gravitation as gravitation affecting numbers not particles. In other papers, the alternative proof techniques of identities were publically admired by H.S. Wilf. The indices of many books on neural nets contain references to her work with Dudley on VC-dimension. I personally have employed the order statitistic work and the VC work to analyze data and make predictions for clients. Currently, she is either self-employed or retired or semi-retired; she is not a young person, certainly over age 55. She corresponds with me, a humble consultant, but also with others who are noteable. I think she is tutoring now, also she mentioned, precocious children, and those who need to learn VC-theory for their work at universities or industry or consulting. I think she is also using mathematics for investment counseling in new ways. She won several awards from the U.S. Senate, the President of Temple University, New York City as a noteable woman of science and other awards. This is all I can think of, offhand, right now. Back to work now. Thank you. Alfred Legrand 16:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

AfDs/blogs

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

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

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

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

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

Gordon MacPherson

Not sure how you did your article search, but I got >120 peer-reviewed articles. Which still doesn't make him notable. What is needed is an independant secondary source specifically referring to 'Gordon MacPherson's important scientific contribution to x'. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of people by that name, even in medicine. I was being very conservative--clearly over-conservative. I re-did it in Scopus to get a citation count, and found 58 peer-reviewed papers. I agree that I would in general not automatically consider an associate professor notable (that's the equiv. rank), but to my surprise, I found 427, 279, 250, 176, 146 citations for the five top papers. I think it covers the notability question. (I haven't put it all in the article quite yet. I find it much easier to cut spam down to size than to build up these over-modest articles.) Fiction writers get shown notable by reviews, athletes by competitions, scientists by citations. I can expand on this. DGG 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. I strongly suspect that he is notable, but that is not the same thing as 1) knowing what he is notable for, 2) having an independant reference that establishes his notability, and c) having content in the article that discusses the thing he is notable for. Deleting an article doesn't prevent anyone from writing an article about that same subject in the future, it simply says that there's nothing in the current article that justifies having it. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 05:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I recognize you know the academic world, probably very well, so I don't have to explain why people there are important to start with (smile) (The next paragraph is what I have evolved as my standard reply-- it's addressed to people who do not know how scientists work, and I do not mean to sound as if you didn't know about this stuff--but it is better worded than what I can do on the spot)

• "We don't judge the work, even in subjects where some of us could, because this is an egalitarian place--we just show how other people have judged it. Notability for academics is typically established by their publications. People become professors by writing notable research papers. That the papers are notable is established by their being published in peer-reviewed journals. The review by two or more specialists in such peer review establishes those papers as evidence of N. For appointment, for promotion to associate professor of senior lecturer, they pass stringent reviews by peers, including particularly peers from other institutions.

this establishes notability much more strictly and reliably than we could here. The profession establishes notability; WP just records the fact.

In general, nobody writes magazine articles on professors, and they dont get a biography until they retire or die. Therefore, since notability in each field is judged by the standard of the field, and notability in this field is established by publications and positions, their publications and positions are always considered suffficient, as is explained more fully in WP:PROF., and consistently maintained at AfD."

"The standard there is more notable than the average." To be noticed by 400 peers is much more important that to be noticed by two book reviewers. To be noticed by more than 200 peers for several different publications is more notable than by being noticed by two book reviewers for several different novels.

Answers to specific objections: What he is notable for, is the subject of the papers. The abstracts are on PubMed for a description. There is no need to discuss the plot of a prize-winning movie to show it's notable. The recognition is sufficient. WP articles have to show their subjects are notable, by the standards of the field. They do not have to explain why the field holds them as notable; its best to get in some sort of orientation, but not essential.

The independent references are the papers themselves, and the are reliable because they have been published in peer-reviewed reliable journals. (in this case, of the very highest quality, and that can be shown too from Science Citation Reports). As a compromise rule of thumb, it seems to have been accepted that Full professors at research university are almost always notable, assistant professors rarely, associate, it depends. In this case, that many citation and papers would be enough even for an assistant professor, not that I can recall an assistant professor article here where he had such a strong record.

There is never much need to re-create an article about a scientist, since by the time enough people show up, it has become clear whether or not it's notable. If I can't get it rewritten or explained in 5 days I go on to the next. I do not defend the non-notable ones. (I do have a list of a few slip-ups when nobody noticed; when people write inadequate article that happens.) The article as it stands is sufficient, and these standards have been shown in multiple prior AfDs --I am not being idiosyncratic (actually, I should probably go back myself and make a list of informal precedents--there are no formal precedents here). DGG 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Librarian stuff

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

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

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

Plot summaries

I have in the last couple of days called for keeping a plot summary for Les Miserables, Angel (TV series) and Buffy (TV series) because the Hugo novel is important in popular culture, and one hears references to it or to situations and characters in it, but no one should have to plow through the endless turgid prose and meandering plot. The TV series are quite different. The plot article provides an overview of the plot arc for the season, which is an emergent property not found in the extremely short capsule summaries for each episode. I am opposed to having detailed, scene by scene plot summaries of every comedy, drama, and cartoon, but a well written overview of series with season-long plot arcs seems quite encyclopedic. These do not relate every event from every episode. I know there is a bias against keeping an article because it is "useful" (heaven forbid anyone should ever find something "useful" in Wikipedia), but if I've heard about a TV show like "Lost" with a complex plot line, knowing the history of the show helps make the next episode comprehensible and entertaining. Seeing one sentence about each episode of a show which has been on several years does not give the reader/viewer the "big picture" like the 2 TV plot guides do. I feel that WP:NOT strongly needs a revision to this effect, but I am all too aware that a cabal will smite down anyone who tries to change a policy without "consensus" when it only takes one or two doctrinaire editors to object and deny that consensus and revert the change. Consensus can also be shown by a set of AFD outcomes. Other TV shows like this might be "The Sopranos," "X-Files" or any other long running series wherein there are plot arcs beyond the individual episode. In contrast, many comedies, cop shows, westerns like "Gunsmoke", and even juvie sci-fi series like "Lost in Space" had pretty much stand alone episodes, with little or no carryover of plot elements from one episode to the next. The fallback position is to call for the season-arc episode guides to replace the existing series-long episode guides in articles about such shows as "Buffy" or "Angel." Shows like these two have been the subject of reviews and conferences with scholarly papers read, and there have been books written about each season, so one could add as many references as necessary to satisfy any requirement that the content be reference based and not OR. Edison 16:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 100 references for the main Buffy the Vampire Slayer article. Major references for the plot arcs would be the series of books called "The Watcher's Guide". These are reliable, but arguably not independent, since they have ties to 20th Century Fox. But there are lots of fully reliable and independent sources about the larger plot arcs, also listed as refs at the Buffy main article, such as DVD reviews at Rotten Tomatos, many of which are from legitimate sources such as Salon, which has editorial supervision and identified reviewers (as opposed to fan reviews)., for instance [1]. There is the whole Buffy studies which lists academic works on the series, for those who are more into it than casual watchers such as me. Edison 17:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Past Presidents

A valid point about the references. They were already in the article (but rather hidden)and now I've given them their own spot at the bottom of the page. As having members with WP articles, the pickings are slim. But where you might see an AFD, I see a small project of sorts. Many of the people on that list are notable professors/teachers/scientists in their own right. So, I was planning to Start writing articles on a few past presidents of interest, and give them overdue praise for their contributions to education and science. I'd be happy to discuss this further, but probably not tonight--I'm off to sleep. Violadamore

sampling deletions

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

Episode review TfD

I posted this on the TfD as well, but I really wanted to make sure you saw my reply:

DGG, I can't stress this enough, these tags were never meant to be used like this. They were never meant to be added in mass without the tagger looking at the articles and doing some initial evaluation. Abuse of the tool should be addressed, deleting the tool because one user over did it is not a good thing, and just screws everyone else over. The discussions themselves are now being held on individual "list of episodes" articles, instead of a centralized area, and these tags are a way to help more people collaborate with the process. By deleting these templates you are only making that small group stay small. A new idea will always start small, but on Wikipedia things like that grow extremely fast. If you snipe the process before it has a change to get off the ground, then people won't be able to find it. The first template was nominated for deletion before a single episode article even got reviewed. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have come to oppose the entire project, because of the demonstrated effect it has already had on articles. I think the reasonably extended presentation of content of a primary source is appropriate--though I agree that it should be accompanied by analysis. I particularly dislike the method that is being applied-- that the correct policy that there should be both presentation and analysis is being addressed not by adding content discussing the material, but by removing material presenting it. I do agree however, that some of the existing discussions were over-detailed. I agree with merging individual episode articles. I do not agree with deleting their basic content, and such is the practical effect of the tag. DGG (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I respect that and all, think about things like WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. It's not that, it would be nice to have real world information, but rather, we require real world information. This "project" was started as a way to find potential in episodes, rather than taking them to AfD. You seem to be blaming to the process because no one can find the potential, or even something to hint towards the potential.

You said: "that the correct policy that there should be both presentation and analysis is being addressed not by adding content discussing the material, but by removing material presenting it. "

Did you stop to think, maybe there wasn't anything to add? -- Ned Scott 03:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And as far as merging goes, I haven't been watching the closure themselves that much, but stuff should be merged that can be merged. I'm sorry if anyone is not doing this, and if you have any specific review in mind I'll volunteer to clean up the mess myself. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

fair enough, and I've had these discussions end up in joint projects before. Even afds sometimes end that way. its the way things should go.

(and I was about to send:

for video shows and the like, the question of finding material is relative tricky for me, because I myself am neither willing nor qualified to find the material, and it's uncomfortable making bare assertions of the existence of material. (though i think the plot of these shows does tend to be discussed in both specialist publications and often newspapers, for at least the most prominent--certainly for shows like the Sopranos. And they also are increasingly discussed in academic writing on popular culture--but the discussion inevitably comes several years behind. But in this part of the field I'm a consumer, not a producer--I want to read the material, not write it. The only area of pop culture where there is good material of this sort in the articles is rock music, where many easily available publication do analyze it, and the followers know about them.

However, for something where I know the research methods a little better, and where it was challenged, I did find it--Les miserables. There were at least a hundred articles in Google Scholar that clearly discussed the plot, and I was able to select 5 or 6 where the titles made it really evident.

Had i done a serious job with professional indexes and non-english sources, I could have found many more. And from these the critical material could be written. But WPedians are not that great on academic writing, as you know, and it will be a while until the work gets done. I would not remove the articles in the meantime. i would keep, and add.

had those challenging spent the time on adding material to the articles where possible, instead challenging them and removing them, it would have been a start. Of course, had those defending them spent half their arguing time on adding, it would have been better as well. The tendency at AfDs in general on all topics of people to say there is material, and cite it at length at at the Afd, but put off adding it to the article doesn't help. Anyone can edit, and most are lazy about it. I'd love to have a rule that one could not place an afd without documenting where one had looked. I wont delete a speedy or expired prod until i've confirmed the absence for myself. (I'm talking generally here, not this project in particular, and certainly not you in particular.) DGG (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

academics

Thanks for your navigation. I added something from GGC’s old resume, which I found on the Internet and books from WorldCat and Amazon. I’ll be trying to add some more substantial info on both academics’ work from other sources.

I translated a few US textbooks on writing and related subjects. If you need any help with Russian, feel free to contact me. My e-mail is anstan@bk.ru.

Anstan07 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Episodes

I saw your comment on the Notability page. So I take it you'd rather see something like this for television show episodes, rather than something like this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Printing

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

Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

Response at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification#How long before delete unreferenced article?. We both know that there is some unreferenced content in Wikipedia that is not appropriate. I am asking you to help me build a tool that will address that problem. There are a thousand what if's and a million more discussion, but lets start someplace. We can build a tool that is an appropriate compromise between M:Inclusionism and M:Exclusionism. Jeepday (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to work with you, because first of all in individual cases good people generally agree on most subjects, and also because I think cooperation including people known for different views of things will be more readily accepted--as it should, because there will be less individualistic bias. Also agreed that inclusionism and inclusionism are not the right terms for most things and people (the only real inclusionists in a pejorative sense are those who want an article on every human, & the only exclusionists in that sense are those who would confine us to the limits of paper.

I'm not sure we could build an inclusive tool: there are too many problems why they might be inappropriate--and the basic problem isn't in my opinion unreferenced--the reason unreferenced picks up so many problems, is that unreferenced articles are often defective in other ways.

There are also areas where there is no agreement on inclusions, and if there is to be a general effort it probably should stay clear of these, which should be discussed separately until there is some real continuing consensus: crimes, plots, for example. If we go too fast on these we may end up doing the work over as consensus changes.

As policy, I am only willing to cooperate on a project aimed at deletion if there is a genuine commitment to improvement when possible, or if there is a high bar to limit consideration to the articles almost certainly unimprovable. For example, many business articles as they stand are not adequate, but could be improved in knowledgeable people used the right sources, and for this example there's a shortage. We can still work cooperatively, but in perhaps different ways.

The only tools I know of are good objective human beings. Only humans can integrate disparate factors. But there can be technical helps. Personally, in my own opinion I think them secondary--my preferred approach to weeding--and as a librarian I have certainly done a lot of it, though to storage, not disposal--is repeated systematic passes through even the largest set, looking for particular criteria each time. WP has 2 million articles. I've worked with collections that size--though not doing it all myself. But I haven't done them all myself. There was a philosophy common to all, agreed to and applied over 40 years by over a hundred very individualistic professionals--get the obvious, leave the others for a subsequent round. This is the way to go fast. Our consistency was pretty good--the rate of restoration from storage to main collection has been well under 1%. But we had commitment to one common principle: the goal was to help the users, & anything the users had found useful in recent years was to be kept.

Since you started here, lets keep the general discussion here. I'll do a separate archive if appropriate. DGG (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, As you know I work towards inclusion and improvement. on questionable content I am more likely to suggest delete then you are, but I readily accept keeping with a less stringent verification requirement then you. Improvement is the primary goal. "high bar to limit consideration to the articles almost certainly unimprovable" I am not sure that you can dictate this in usage, I understand what you are saying, and I think I have addressed it by placing a very low threshold for removal (or nonplacement) of the template. Like anything there will be room to misuse it but, as proposed placing the template is only a suggestion for deletion. Even if absolutely no references are added to the article, before it can be deleted an adim has to come along and agree to remove the article by actually deleting it. Additionally it places articles in a category, that will be monitored (the same as Category:All articles proposed for deletion for much longer then a prods 5 days. I made some changes (earlier today) to Wikipedia:Requests for verification take a look and see what we need to address. Jeepday (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

the problem is that one person can place templates in one day that will take ten people a year to address. Thus the end result of such a process, however, well intended, will be destructive. I care for WP, and do not wish to sacrifice half of the potentially good articles.

You trust the accuracy of admins more than I do; I am one of them, and from doing the work, know how easy it is to make mistakes. DGG (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think putting source tags on uncontroversial statements it diverts energy from challenging and sourcing the controversial ones, and is not a constructive way of improving the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is potential for worthwhile articles to be deleted with {{RfV}}. Keep in mind there is no original work in Wikipedia so no knowledge will be lost, articles may be temporarily not on Wikipedia, but someone will add them back. I try to focus more on the future, think of the benefits in 3 to 5 years, every article will be verified. Thanks for joining the team at Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced articles Jeepday (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad we agree on where we are going.But WP is also for today, and removing articles in the hope that someone will add back the notable ones is not in my opinion a reasonable approach.

Incidentally, I maintain some degree of sanity here by not getting over-involved in the fate of individual articles. I know I can't save them all, or, for that matter, delete them all. And certainly not get them all written right. DGG (talk) 16:44, 17

Blogs etc as references

I am wondering about when blogs become useful as references. Some blogs are written by known figures who are notable already from their other writing, or from their qualifications or expertise. Some are associated with people who give their real names and professional positions and credentials. Some science blogs have been highly rated. For example, Nature magazine placed a "review of some of the best blogs written by working scientists" on its website in July 2006.[2][3].

Some examples:

• Pharyngula (weblog) by PZ Myers, a biologist from the University of Minnesota, science category winner in the 2006 Weblogs Awards
• Panda's Thumb (weblog), with many professional scientist posters, also highly rated (second place winner?). Almost every poster I have seen on there already has a WP article, and is noted for other writing already. Usually with good sources.
• talkorigins not a blog exactly, but with many articles written by well-known professional scientists and well-sourced
• RealClimate, a blog produced by "real climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union"
• Aetiology, found at [4], written by Tara C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in Iowa
• scienceblogs, a provider of science blogs includes many interesting and useful blogs [5]. Note that they are selective in who gets to blog, in fact.
• Nature itself hosts assorted science-related blogs [6]

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

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

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

For your consideration: A description of a science blog

Please take a look at my draft of an article on the science blog Aetiology, which appears here. Thank you.--Filll 16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have slowly improved this draft a bit and also, at your suggestion, started a draft on the author of this blog at User talk:Filll/Tara C. Smith. I think I am getting close to showing she is notable, but you tell me what you think.--Filll 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Smith has published 3 books, and taught at 4 different Universities, and has several journal publications as well. Smith organized the Iowa Citizens for Science (with a few dozen members), and been engaged in lobbying and organizing public Darwn events (1 so far, another upcoming in 2008), and an article about her activities in this area has been in the Des Moines Register. I think she is well on her way to notability, if she is not there already.

Her blog is rated number 7 in science from Nature, out of 46 million blogs evaluated. I count 4 print mentions (including in Cell (journal) and 5 cyberspace media articles about Aetiology (in addition to just 1000s of general blogosphere discussions on other blogs). Notable?--Filll 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

An essay I've written

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

Primary source only articles

I would tend to agree that a teacher would and should insist on the student looking at the book itself. That's because any self-respecting teacher would have the student writing a secondary source—a research paper or the like.

On the other hand, this is intended to be a tertiary source. It's intended to be a collection of the reliable and verified research of others from looking at primary sources, not our own work in that vein. Sometimes, primary sources can be used for some supplemental material with secondary ones being used for the main bulk, if purely descriptive claims are made. But in everything, we should be mirroring secondary sources, not second-guessing them. If a reliable source says something I believe to be wrong, we go with the source, not me. By the same token, if secondary sources don't write about a given subject at all, or a given aspect of that subject, we should mirror that—by not writing about it at all. Students in class are intended to be the original author and first publisher of their work. (If they're not, they'd better hope to have a dumb teacher!) That's not the idea here at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure there. I think it's good we tend to require secondary sources, just because of our nature as a tertiary source. I guess I just don't see "List of times X got mentioned somewhere" as of particular relevance to that, it seems to fail indiscriminate information collection. (I'm aware that's significantly overused, but here it really does seem to apply.) I think the cultural influences of works are better done by citing works that actually speak to how the work has influenced culture, rather than just saying "X seems to have been influenced by Y" with nothing to back that up. In some cases that is a purely descriptive statement which doesn't need secondary sourcing (for example, to state that Weird Al's "Like a Surgeon" is a parody of Madonna's "Like a Virgin"), but in a lot of cases it steps over the line into original synthesis if no one's actually studied it and come to that conclusion. I think what TV Guide or other secondary sources do there is allow more elaborate conclusions to be placed in and sourced, where it would be original research to draw them ourself. If that can't be done, and it's basically just a list of "Family Guy spoofed X one time, and so did The Simpsons", I guess I fail to see the value. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm certainly not saying "never notable". (WP:IDONTLIKEIT is just as invalid as WP:ILIKEIT, and mirroring, not second-guessing, sources applies just as much in the other direction). There's tons of material, for instance, on the cultural impact of shows like The Simpsons, South Park, and even some soap operas. I'm sure articles could be written on those subjects and sourced perfectly well. But a good article on that subject would go far beyond "A was mentioned in X, Y, and Z." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of blog as source

At your suggestion, I have now built up Tara C. Smith's article to hopefully reach notability, as well as the article about her blog, Aetiology. Do you think these are now reasonable? Do they demonstrate notability? Can I now use them as sources at [7] ? If you think that this is a good source now, would you help me reinstate the citations on the article Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism for me? I have not found other sources, at least yet, because it is pretty obscure so far. If you know of other sources, I would welcome those as well. Thank you. --Filll 20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has disagreed that the general audience, popular nature of the 3 books should be mentioned. They also disagree that the book reviews should be included. They also want to put personal information in the article, such as material about her d.o.b, ethnicity (???), family life, etc. I disagree with this, even though I can put it in there. Possibly the year she was born can be included, but I think the rest is sort of irrelevant. I want to concentrate on her professional career. Comments?--Filll 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance proposal

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

AfD notification proposal

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

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

Schools Proposal

DGG by David Shankbone

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

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

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

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

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

Hello colleague

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

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

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

CSA Trust and "2 users"

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

Hello colleague

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

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

Content policy analysis

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

For you

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

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

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

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

Here's another one

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

The spammer

He's not a publisher, but he works for a company that somehow represents both publishers commercially. I don't have time to refind it. He somehow represents more than one journal, and it's the company he works for that represents more than one journal in some way or another, or more than one publisher, and I saw it somewhere, it was a PR firm or a marketing firm or something, in Chicago, maybe, and I had come across it a couple of times in some of the earlier ones. They have a very small Wikipedia article, and I twice cross referenced same day accounts with minimal contributions to adding journals, but who were editing in between the journal socks, and made single edits to this company. I'm sorry, let me see if I can retrace my steps. No, I'm not having any more luck. But you realize there appear to be hundreds of these one day sock puppets for the publishers? This appears to be industry wide. [10] I don't think this is one, though:[11] KP Botany 04:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I really can't think of it. But when I saw the first edit, I looked it up, then when I saw the second one, it vaguely dawned, and then it hit me what he was doing and why he's posting more than one publisher, and why an earlier one I dismissed for the same reason was doing the same, it's was a US firm, but they were all European publishers represented. There was an additional international connection with an ASEAN publisher, maybe Singapore? Sorry. I'll be off for a few weeks, in the mountains. It will probably hit me, or maybe you'll find it. KP Botany 04:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking along those lines also. In this particular case, I think I can find out the names through another channel. I also know just how to spread the word more generally & will do so quietly & without names on the appropriate list. Personally, I regard the inclusion of one ACS journal probably just a clever attempt to look impartial. On the longer run, the way to prevent this is to add the major journals ourselves, or with carefully controlled assistance. But most of the ones added in this batch do deserve to be in WP eventually, but of course not preferentially. The scientific societies remain the priority.

i do not like to block without really strong reason. But I will do it to get attention when needed.

technical details I like to do: In some cases, I like to comment out sections than to revert the addition--it's easer to re-add the key ones. I do not think it wise to insist upon the use of "cite" templates, especially as there is no actual requirement--I rarely use them myself except if an article has them already or if things are complicated. I think they make the code hard to read and edit. -- I use <ref> </ref> .

But have a good time--I assume you will be coming back with some more pictures. DGG (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Example clean-up for WikiProject?

Current Opinion in Immunology got kept. At the moment, the article has no more information than is found in Current Opinion. Do you want to perform a clean-up that can be used as an example at the WikiProject of how to do this sort of thing? Carcharoth 11:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

you mean, do I want to fill in as extensive an article as possible. I will improve the article, but its would not be the best model for others, because of the complications of being part of a series of which only some is shown, a situation I hope we will soon change. But we already have a number of other good examples. For instance, though I cannot think of any that are ideal. But look at Journal of Chemical Physics, which I did a little while back to save it from deletion, or Annals of Mathematics, for a different type of article.DGG (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. How did J. Chem. Phys. ever get put up for deletion?? Carcharoth 23:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Academic conferences

I'm not going to mention it on the Journals WikiProject (unless you think it is relevant), but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Conference on the Gulen Movement as a way to gauge feelings for notability of conferences. I'd be particularly interested in a reaction to my comment "The question seems to be which academic conferences are notable? It is rare for academic conferences to get coverage outside of their specialised areas. Does this mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover them?" Thanks. Carcharoth 15:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, picking a conference that hasn't even taken place yet might not have been the best idea... :-) Carcharoth 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In my view, almost no individual conference is notable--the bar is very high. I can thing of a few exceptions--none of which presently have articles, nor would I at this time try to introduce them. The few that have made it as far as AfD, I've usually said delete. Series can be; in some cases their proceedings are major information resource. We need articles on most of the major ones--there are probably at least 50 in the sciences--though not 5,000. The current practice is usually to put them under the names of the sponsoring organisation. I may mention it at the project, because there is a related question of how to handle book series in general--but again, I'd want to get journals more throughly established first. 16:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)== TfD nomination of Template:Trivia==

Template:Trivia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pixelface 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Orangemike again

Orangemike re-deleted an section in Corset article without/against consensus again. What to do? --78.0.18.147 11:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Masterfully done! --83.131.80.42 23:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

DGG's edit made sense, unlike the original section (which I feel was deleted in accordance with consensus, thank you!). I still feel it's Undue Emphasis (especially on catsuits), but it's not the silly spot-the-corset game which the original list would lend itself to. --Orange Mike 15:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed that the catsuit part needs further expansion--so does the rest of the material--it doesnt even mention what I think the most notable use: Gone With the Wind. DGG (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"agreed"? I'm saying it should go out, not get expanded. None of this stuff is very notable; it might be relevant for a Corsetry wiki or fetishist forum, but I really don't see why you think it belongs here at all, much less at greater length!? --Orange Mike 18:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

we obviously disagree on the importance of this material--I've given my reasons at length at multiple AfDs. The use by notable artists of a particular theme is notable, and goes under the theme as well as the artist. As a general field, it forms one of the parts of the academic study of cinema etc and popular interest as well. (In art history in fact it's the basis of dating and provenance). When editing this sort of material I remove references from non-notable artists, judging in fields I do not know by the WP entries, as for a list. I'll do the GWTW tonight--it's one of the most famous scenes in the movie. I notice you use the term "very notable"--but it doesnt have to be very notable or even notable to be acceptable content, that standard applies only to articles. And even for article notable, not very notable is the standard. One could indeed make an encyclopedia of only the very notable, but it wouldn't be WP--there are other projects with that goal. I replied hoping your comment was an attempt to find some common ground. (My current suggestion is to abandon video game uses as in practice unsourcable, to accept other cultural refs, and to integrate bio into the bio. and adaptations into the main section on versions.) DGG (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Columbia University's School of Continuing Education

Following up, please note - this paragraph is a word-for-word copy of page four from the school's 2006 Dean's Report.[12]

(details refactored)

I hope that's enough to demonstrate the problem: most of the page is copyvio from university publications, posted by single purpose IPs or accounts that either resolve to the university or are obviously related to it. The abuse is so blatant that bulleted lists aren't even reformatted in wikimarkup. Please speedy. Durova^Charge! 22:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

indeed yes--I perfectly well realised that it would all have been copied from various places. I left that edit summary just to prevent deletion while I reworked it quickly. I have now removed all the detailed sections and stubbified the basics. I think a stubbified article can serve a useful lesson--more on your page--our postings seem to have crossed. DGG (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Small-world Experiment page

I recently learned that the Small-world Experiment page is scheduled to be reverted over possible copyright violation issues. As the person responsible for the suspected copyright infringement, I have posted a clarification on the talk page. Hopefully this clears up the issue. For further clarification, you are welcome to contact me. --Jerfgoke 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC) I've replied at length to your question about this on the article talk page Talk:Small world experiment. Please also see [13] for how I proposed to deal with this. DGG (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Journals added

I added another article to the sandbox page, User talk:Journals88/sandbox, using your advice from the previous article. Would you be able to critique and make sure it is not a COI? Thank you for your help and sorry I have been taking so long to get back to you.Journals88 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

try them now. DGG (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Another one.

These users should have been blocked and severely warned, as I'm tired of this. I don't have time for this one, as I'm writing a report right now. [14] KP Botany 00:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Same user, back again. Has been blocked & I will clean up. I too have now lost whatever patience I have. If you see any additional ip addresses , let me know. DGG (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I got inspired to track things down further, found several additional ip addresses going back to Sept 1, blocked them all, removed links (& a good deal of misc. spam from others), & figured out some other ways to find them. Will follow up on COI page. Yes, you are right that my initial AGF was not correct. Kept going till my mouse stopped working from overuse. Literally. DGG (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, pretty bad. Thanks. KP Botany 01:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Technical book categories, any input?

Any insight on technical book categories would be appreciated.[15] KP Botany 01:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TIMETRACE

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

In-popular-culture notability guideline proposal

Hey, I've been told you would have a lot to say about Wikipedia:Notability (in popular culture). Please take a look at that page and give us your thoughts. MessedRocker (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposal: Wikipedia is not a trivia collection

This proposed guideline is so that WP:NOT#TRIVIA can be returned to Wikipedia. It is distinct from Wikipedia:Trivia sections in that it is a content policy, not a style policy. This guideline states that trivia may be removed.

I know in advance this is not your point of view, and this proposal may be seen as in competition with the Wikipedia:Relevance of content guideline, which I think is mostly your work. However, I'm hoping you can find elements of my proposal that might help your proposal, and I'm hoping I can receive some feedback from you about what is needed to make my proposal better.

As I've stated at WP:VPP, it doesn't help my proposal for contradictory philosophies to be introduced — this is, after all, a proposed guideline and does not need to contradict itself. However, I would also be interested in feedback from people have problems with excluding trivia, and you are an experienced editor who I trust can collaborate in good faith. I'm hoping you might have a few specific suggestions on how this guideline can be made better, preferably on a relevant Talk page, either mine or Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia.

If you are not interested in supporting this proposal in any way, I won't hold it against you, but I think I can only benefit from your suggestions. / edg ☺ ★ 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC).

I have replied at the VP discussion--I do have some suggestions. I do think we need a guideline--I don't wantto be aguing this in 10 different places forwver. But it should reflect the factors that do seem to matter and still be flexible enough so people of all tendencies can support it. The Relevance of content section is, however, not my work. It was written almost entirely by User:Father Goose, and the history will show I made one single edit only. [16]. Even on the talk page I only made two comments-- [17] and then [18] Maybe they have influenced the subsequent discussion. But my interest in that guideline page is about something else: balance and proportion in general. DGG (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But where do you want to centralize the discussion--I'll copy it there. DGG (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No one seems to think Wikipedia:Avoid trivia was useful in its current form, so I'm retiring it as an unneeded distraction. At least now I know.

As to where this discussion should continue, I dunno. I'll follow it wherever, but it seems deadlocked in 2 or 3 places. And "deadlocked" is optimistic on my part; really it's moving toward abandoning trivia exclusion of any kind. / edg ☺ ★ 01:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is an immense amount of article content labeled trivia ( or not labeled trivia) which is inconsequential or infantile and should be removed. How to do it fairly I do not know--see my long comment above to Becksguy. But it's interesting we see the trend differently--I think I am fighting against all odds to try to retain notable content. T reason this problem is so difficult is, in my view,the over-zealous actions of those who tried and are still trying to delete everything resembling popular culture. If there had been a reasonable effort at removing clearly inappropriate content, it would have gone much more smoothly. But anything that appears to be a concerted effort to remove wholesale any sort of article or content that is not liked, tends not surprisingly, to arouse opposition. DGG (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

article content labeled trivia (or not labeled trivia) which is inconsequential or infantile ... should be removed.

I don't see how a consensus can form around any means of doing this. The current environment is hostile to content restrictions of this sort, and there is considerable momentum for removing what already exists. At a later time when things have cooled down, there will be considerable precedent for retaining such content. Already plenty of editors think In popular culture and Trivia sections are standard features. / edg ☺ ★ 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

as for popular culture, I do think it should be a standard feature whenever there is enough material. As for the content of trivia sections, I think the consensus is that the usable material should be distributed in the article in a more appropriate way. I don't support inadequate articles or weak content & I think we can find a way by which reasonable people can work together for a reasonable compromise goal. One in which there may be articles that perhaps not everyone agrees are justified, but where the content is as good as possible. That's my goal in general on a number of topics--to stop disputing borderline cases of notability and work on content. And in getting the real junk out and keeping it out. DGG (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to badger you with attention requests, but you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (in popular culture) which started yesterday. Not sure if discussion there would be redundant with other forums; your input is welcome. Best, — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: criteria for academics

Hi DGG -- I assume you're referring to Dlawer Ala'Aldeen? The way I work on AfD with academics tends to be to list all the information that I've found that I feel has a bearing on the notability of the subject, whether positive, negative or neutral, and then to see whether on balance I believe that s/he appears to have attained sufficient notice by his/her peers to meet WP:PROF.

I agree that citations are more important than raw numbers of papers, but unfortunately have access only to Google Scholar, which is partial at best. As to the professor vs other titles divide, that doesn't really make much sense in the UK at the moment, as we're currently transitioning from a system in which only heads of departments are given the title of professor to something more akin to the US system. In the meantime, what 'professor', 'senior lecturer', 'reader' &c&c means is entirely university and indeed department dependent.

My standards for keeping an existing article (that was created in good faith and without obvious conflict of interest) are significantly lower than my standards for creating a new article myself. Regards, Espresso Addict 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

creation of journal pages

Hello DGG. Thank you for the messages regarding the pages I have created for a number of UC Press-published journals. I am an employee of the Press, and was asked to create these pages. I was not aware that doing so was in violation of WP standards (let alone copyright standards), and it was not my intent to add content that does not warrant inclusion. Nor was it my intent to create additional work for WP to clean up the pages I created. I will do my best to bring the pages up to snuff, and I apologize for any inconvenience. Thanks. -Joe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph.tobin (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan fiction article

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

h-index and CiteULike

Hi DGG,

Thanks for the kind words regarding my work on h-index. Once I have some spare time on my hand, I'll try to work in some recent research on the topic. V interesting stuff showing that women in evo/eco have generally lower h-index even though other attempts to show impact of research show them level with men.

Regarding the CiteULike article, please tell me where you see a conflict of interest. I attempted to remove the direct quotes from the website that were previously in the article. And rewrote most of it. Also emailed the authors regarding the free status of the service (see talk page) for a justification why there's no statement referring to that on their website. They were responsive and said that there are currently exploring ways to support the site, possibly via contributions from companies, institutions, etc. Since this is in the making, they said, it might cause legal complication to place such a statement on their website.

Please let me know where you see a conflict of interest, so I can rework that part and remove the tag.

Best, Jakob Suckale 11:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC) -

replied on your page, and fixed it a little more and removed the tag. 18:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

will contact you by email to discuss. best, Jakob Suckale 10:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Compersion

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

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

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

Charon in popular culture discussion mentioned in Los Angeles Times article

Dear DGG, I don't know if you saw this, but it may interest you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and a query (magazines)

Thank you for the 'excellent work' message on my talk page. Did you mean extending that particular list and changing its name to reflect the greater coverage, or creating/working on a series of lists for diferent countries/periods?? I am game for either, on the understanding that my time for Wikipedia is limited, so I tend to have 'bursts' when nothing more demanding is happening in the 'real' world - like earning a living... ;~) --Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 11:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

either way--Unless considerably more information can be added about the individual childrens' magazines themselves, I think a wider coverage would be better, either geographically or chronologically. The article will be strong if more extensive in any direction DGG (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I did a {{main| }} link to the History of British Comics, so my first thoughts are to keep this list as a British one, even if it gets extended beyond the early C20 period...happy to do some work on that. But my knowledge of other countries' magazine lit is limited - though as an ex-librarian myself (can one ever be an ex-librarian, I wonder?) I could probably find out quite a bit. Whether that would be enough to be more than a stub for each country, though?? - Maybe we should try and keep them all on the same page after all and have headings for different countries within the list, which could be extended by people with greater knowledge (one would hope) - what d'you reckon? --Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I consider most of what I do here to be working as a librarian, if that's an answer. Advising people about information (& for that matter, about navigating bureaucracies. ) As for these magazines, did you see them as comics primarily? --I'm thinking of the nearest thing I know well, which is Wodehouse's school stories. and in an earlier period--Edgeworth--you might want to make the acquaintance of User:Awadewit. DGG (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No I dont see them as primarily comics, but the History of British Comics page does include Boy's (& Girl's) Own Paper fairly early within the article, so I think that article does reckon to cover the magazines. This is why I added in some that are shown on that page (on which, BTW, there is quite a long list) and added the 'main article' link. Are we agreed that the page should be extended as far as poss to include all countries and periods, with country or area subheads [the link for History of British Comics can then go under the UK heading] and hope this will encourage others to contribute about the mags for countries they know about?? If so at what stage should the page title be changed and the 'move' [if that's what it is] get done? And does a move take links already made with it, or act as a redirect for them...or does that have to be done by fixing them separately via 'what links here'? - I'm new enough not to have got involved in too much of that sort of rearrangement yet. :)

I don't think one ever really stops being a librarian; once you've worked on an enquiry desk for 20+ years it is second [or possibly first!] nature to try to guide people to the right place for the information they're looking for - which I suppose is why I've felt compelled to keep coming back to WP and tweak here and there as my own expertise/interest allows. I will look at User:Awadewit's pages and maybe leave a message, thanks for the suggestion. Abbeybufo (talk • contribs) 13:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer the easy part--if you want to make it more general, now is the time. List of childrens magazines and annuals is presumably what you're after. in that case. A move takes care of the links if it's a straight move. A merge is harder, but I can do both for you as needed. what would mainly need cleaning up is categories, and you should think about that as well. But here is the real problem: in general, lists are supposed to include only notable things, normally defined as those with a Wikipedia article. So the "red links' will be a problem. How much of an article will be needed to support notability is not clear. There's a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals‎ which can probably be of some help, though the orientation is a little different. DGG (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Compersion

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

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

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

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

Barnstar award

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

Re: welcome colleague

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

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

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

IPC

Just wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:Notability (in popular culture), in case you didn't know about it. Someone created it recently as a proposal.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:14, 10/9/2007

Fallout from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum

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

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

Trivia

Totally appropriate, dude. I completely agree with you. I'm watching the conversation to see how it goes...but I can't imagine wholesale removal of Triva or Pop Culture sections without an attempt to incorporate the content into the aricle makes any sense at all...unless it's a new rule come down the pike... Dreadstar † 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There's an ANI thread about the whole situation here with some consensus slowly building in a subsection.--chaser - t 22:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. They may need to better deliniate the WP:V issues from the WP:TRIVIA issues, they're separate, imho. Removal of unsourced content from the trivia sections is fine, but is the baby being thrown out with the bathwater when the entire trivia section is deleted - as in reliably sourced trivia? "Reliably sourced trivia" - is there such a thing? It almost sounds like an oxymoron....heh. I'm not sure if I like trivia sections or not, but we don't currently prohibit them. Thanks for pointing it out, Chaser! Dreadstar † 03:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

trivia can in practice mean relatively trivial, or utterly trivial. But unfortunately it has been widely used outside WP to mean "collection of miscellaneous curious facts about a person or thing, some of which may actually be important but some are just amusing" and the use of our trivia sections copies this. We're stuck with the word, because the rest of the world uses it, and because of the intrinsic meaning it has a negative connotation to many sensible people, which is not always reflected in the material.

in popular culture,however, is a respected academic term for a way of studying literature and society, and is to some extent the currently popular specialty, both in writing and in courses for students. There are some old-fashioned people who think it a diversion from serious analysis, but they are a small minority. Some seem to have gotten involved with Wikipedia and are trying to restrict us to their preferred limitations. DGG (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent analysis of the situation, DGG. I guess we'll have to convince those old-fashioned minds so we can serve our readers properly by keeping up with everyone's trivial pursuits..;) Dreadstar † 03:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I came to my position by realising that my idea of serious topics was seen by others as a prime example of the pursuit of the trivial--that the academic world I have spent my career assisting was regarded by many here as not worth the attention. I have always myself been rather poor at the literal game of Trivial Pursuit--I would not make a good editor of such materials. The only way of preserving minority interests is live and let live. Some call it intellectual freedom and the promotion of diversity. DGG (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well said. From reading your userpage bio, I knew you came from an academic background of the world of scholarly information, and your experience there is very helpful to our project. I'm very glad to have you contributing and I'm glad to have run across you here. Me? Well, I never liked the game of trivial pursuit...it always seemed...oh, I don't know...trivial? :D My head is so full of trivia in certain areas it's almost scary sometimes...and I use these bits of trivia to try and inject humor or interesting bits of info when I'm communicating with other editors here...heck, I've done it on this page... Trivia can be a effective tool..but beware of the power of dark side of the triv...oh, wait, never mind...another trivial leap 'o the braincells...;) Dreadstar † 05:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're correct on your analysis of "Trivia" vs. "In popular culture", I think some analysis of some things in current mainstream culture is entirely appropriate. I tend to draw the line at "Is the in popular culture article or section prose based on sourced and verifiable analysis of the subject's impact on popular culture, or is it just a list of when it's appeared in this that or something else?" The first case is acceptable and appropriate, the second has to go. This being said, what would you say to working together on a project? I think it would be easy enough to find sourced analysis of a major subject's impact on modern culture, and we could set up an article to "show how it's done", as it were. Let me know if you'd be interested. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I'm not the ideal person for most of these topics, as I do not know the sources for popular music or television, nor can I really judge importance. In those fields I use WP to learn, not to write. And so I think that perhaps smaller more focused articles -- or perhaps sections-- are clearer: "Dragons in computer games", for example. But I agree that everyone involved in this question ought to contribute to the writing as well as the discussion. Let me look for one that might interest both of us.

the question of the validity and appropriateness of list articles affects more than this topic, though the discussion is often inter-twined. In general, to be frank, I like lists and tables wherever they are appropriate. I think WPedians often write these clearer than they write prose. The sort of long turgid paragraphs used for many articles contributes to vague thinking and vague sourcing. It takes real skill to make descriptive paragraphs interesting and clear, but anyone who understands the subject should be able to do a fair outline. Would people here could write better, but we must adapt our demands to our abilities. DGG (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

== Fortuitious post-suggestion ;-) ==

I noticed that you mentioned to an editor that the fictional debates are not one and the same. I had just finished applying the following to all 3 related AFD's.

Cheers! /Blaxthos 00:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

creative use of the template! i think the best solution is to rewrite in somewhat smaller pieces whether or not these are deleted now. And there are too much of IPC/trivia related problems for one day. 01:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

pick a journal ... any journal

I have spammed everyone else on the project so, ... could you pick an old journal in a field that you are familiar with for a future collaboration project; enter it under "Nominations for future CotW:" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic_Journals#Planning_ahead. Thanks, John Vandenberg 02:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the notability discussion is picking up again. Nurg has done a draft based on the books guideline. I think you had some developed ideas on this, so if you have time to contribute, that would be great. Discussion is spread between the WikiProject talk page and User talk:Nurg/Notability (periodicals). Carcharoth 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Search LOVE in Google

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

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

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

ACM Multimedia

Where is the assertion of importance in this article? What are the notability guidelines for conferences and meetings? Robert K S 06:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Speedy for non notability can only be used for the classes of material given as WP:CSD. Technical scientific, business meetings etc are not included among them. There has been very strong resistance to expansion of those criteria. 2. Further, according to WP:CSD A7 even for those things included any good faith indication of notability at all is sufficient to prevent speedy. If you doubt the notability, you may test it at AfD. 3. But since this is a major international conference of the major professional association in a field where professional conferences are the main avenue of communication, it will probably be held notable. There are no special rules for articles on these, just WP:N., but all major series of conferences proposed for AFD in the last 9 months have been held notable. Individual conferences have usually been held non-notable. In practice, the guidelines are determined by the decisions at AfD. But that's just my advice, and you have the right to test them. DGG (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'm not sure you answered my questions. All articles have to assert notability, no? I do not doubt that ACM Multimedia is a professional conference, but it must point to some source showing that it is in order for the article to stand. You seem to be saying that, to the best of your knowledge, there are as yet no notability guidelines for meetings and conferences, and that each such article must be tested on a case-by-case basis through AfD. Robert K S 07:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Assert" is a very weak word. the subjects of all articles have to do much more than that, they have to actually be notable. For some types of articles, many of them give so little indication or assertion of any possible notability at all that it is appropriate to remove them quickly on the grounds that notability would not possibly be able to be shown. That's for speedy--it deals nicely with the real junk. I, like most admins, take a share in deleting a dozen of so each day. Everything else goes for AFD or PROD.

Most types of articles have no specific guidelines, in fact, just WP:N. It's the default, and the others are just specializations--and are every one of them not fixed policy but flexible guidelines subject to interpretation. All questioned notability for whatever reason gets tested at AfD, and any good faith registered user such as yourself has the right to bring an article there to test it. I am advising you it will probably stand, on the basis of my experience with the last year's worth of such article brought there, but that is just advice. I am not the person who gets to decide. The question will be argued, and the consensus of the people discussing it there will be followed. I will advise you that the article can in my opinion certainly be sourced, and you might want to try to look for some yourself--it takes less time than the afd nomination process. The rule is that articles are not deleted for being unsourced, only for being unsourcable. An appropriate intermediary step is to place a PROD tag on it, saying something like no sources given for notability -- see WP:PROD for the procedure -- and notify the person who wrote the article to give them a chance to source it. AfD s a blunt and cumbersome tool to get articles sourced and improved. DGG (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem not to be getting my point.

It's not enough, in my understanding of Wikipedia, for a subject to actually be notable in order for its article to stand. The article must express this notability somehow. In other words, the article must indicate its own raison d'être. This can be done qualitatively or quantitatively; it can be as simple as a reference to an outside source. For the ACM Multimedia article, it can be something like "The conference was attended by 52,000 people in 2007": such would oppose it to articles that could only claim "I attended this event by myself, alone, in my basement last night". In your edit summary of your removal of my speedy tag, you said that the article asserts its notability. I do not see such an assertion. As it stands, I see an unsourced repository of external links. Robert K S 08:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

1. to say something is in some real way related to a major national organization is in any case an assertion or claim to notability. Anything at all that might make someone--not necessarily yourself--think something notable is an assertion of notability. Such a bare association about someone real, that he was for example president of such an association or chairman of such a conference, would be enough to prevent speedy A7, whether or not it was actually notable. There are two levels of notability, the minimal level to prevent A7--which does not require any sort of reference, by the way--and the higher level to stay in WP, which is actual notability per WP:N, and does require it to be referenceable. The place this policy is tested is at deletion review. Any very slight claim is cause for undeletion, if someone does delete it via speedy.
2. but it does not matter for this article, because a conference does not fit under speedy A7 as one of the limited number of classes, real people, groups of real people, bands, clubs, companies, and web content. Nothing else. Not conferences, meetings, conventions, schools, churches, pieces of music, buildings, computer programs, commercial products books, videos, religions, events, theories, essays--as examples of things people sometimes try to use A7 for, but they cannot be done that way. If one wants to challenge anything of these for notabiity, it has to be at WP:CSD or WP:PROD. Even if there were to be an article about a local conference of a city subsection of such a organization--which would almost certainly not be notable-- it would have to go via AfD or Prod.

The reason underlying this is that all of this are generally disputable or need more than 2 people to be reasonably sure. The place this policy is tested is also at deletion review. If some administrator does carelessly or deliberately delete such an article, if it is taken there, it is always undeleted. If an admin were to consistently insist of doing so, he would probably be de-adminned, as he would be for violating any other clear policy. --and there is in fact a proposal to make the procedure for doing so much easier. Even if i thought they were unimportant altogether, I still could not speedy it.

1. The place to urge an expansion of the types of things that fit under speedy or a change in the degree of notability is the talk page for WP:CSD or the WP:VP. there have been no expansions of the criteria the past year or longer. The trend there is, in fact, to restrict it further. You are anyone is welcome to try otherwise. I do not make the rules. DGG (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

New trivia/pop culture WikiProject

I presume this will be of interest to you: Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture.--Father Goose 23:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: UCfD

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#UCfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pop culture?

Any more input on User:Mangojuice/PC? Mangojuice^talk 19:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

as a start, change to /Cultural references. Second, are you aiming for user space or WP space. I would suggest WP space. Depending on which, I will look at details againDGG (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Aiming at a WP space essay, at Wikipedia:Popular culture. I don't like "cultural references" because people have the understanding that "cultural references" refers to sections such as the "references in" lists I talk about. BTW, I saw your point about "explaining humor" - obviously you're right, it's relevant and worthwhile to explain plot, but there's a limit, so that bit could stand some rewriting. Mangojuice^talk 19:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about "references" let's look around at what others have tried as page titles for this material.My point is, that much of the material may not in either direction be "popular" culture. Uses of Moby Dick or the Bible is not making use of popular culture. In the other directions, a theme used by, say, Rushdie, does not quite fit either. Not even all of film fits into this category. I have sometimes thought some of the sections should be dealt with separately (video games in particular, since there are still very few conventional secondary references.) as for location, do you mean as a replacement? or a subpage? The original is just an essay--subpages are generally discouraged except in user space. It might be interesting, though, to have a good way of doing a collection of different people's essays. DGG (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD/AFD boomerang

Hi DGG - on a CFD discussion you noted * Keep Many of the AfD discussions on such lists close as calling for the exactly opposite treatment--to use the category. doing this is at cross purposes. There are several ongoing discussions on how to deal with such articles, and this change is at the least premature.DGG (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Do you have links for the "several ongoing discussions" on this topic? It's of great concern to me, as well. --lquilter 18:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

starting point: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia and Popular Culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Trivia is what Wikipedia does best, Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content , and see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles , Wikipedia talk :Trivia sections.

Lots of interesting stuff on the trivia/IPC debate, but I haven't found much on the AFD/CFD boomerang problem in which a list goes up for AFD and people say "let's make it a category" and the same category goes up for CFD and people say "not appropriate for a category; listify". Or am I missing something? --lquilter 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That particular line was used more a few months back, where one or two editors were consistently following a pattern of first splitting off content from a main article as too long to keep together, then nominating the split one for deletion as non notable. But it wasnt back-and-forth, it was just nominated as better in a category. I'll find some afds where this was used. The general question of list vs category is a tricky one, because it also concerns the question of whether redlinks should be removed from lists--whether they can and should include content not sufficiently notable for a WP article. What's going on there is an overlapping movement of general opposition to lists. A great many major lists are being nominated as indiscriminate because they contain a large number of items. I want to look for some AfDs where the list was kept , so it will still be visible. I think the answer is to always have both if there are enough to justify a category. I dont see how we can decide a priori which way or organization is better. DGG (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there are lots of good reasons to like one or the other, depending on the situation. But then I am fairly inclusive on lists and on redlinks, too. (The redlink think actually annoys me quite a bit, because of course there are lots of systemic bias issues involved in it.) I really think there should be some sort of list for monitoring AFD/CFDs that center on the category/list question, to ensure some consistency of approach across the two discussions. I guess I'll propose that at the cat/list/infobox page. --lquilter 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

HarvardScience

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

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

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

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

Sylvin Rubinstein

Could you take a look again at Sylvin Rubinstein? Much, of not most, of it is directly from the webpage [19]. For example, the "Nazi Occupation" section - both of those sentences are directly lifted from the news article. In the "Resistance" section, the paragraphs/sentences that start "It turned out..." and "Werner arranged..." are directly lifted, and that's most of the section that isn't direct quotes from Rubinstein. And before Apeloverage's edit it was even worse. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Wrong Assumption

Although I know wiki pages have been created for some penn state faculty members during these weeks, I have to say I only created the page for James Wang in fact (I trided to create the page for another faculty member I also really admire once, but I gave up at last due to not enough notability.) Please do not make ungrounded assumption. I do not think creating wiki pages for interested people is a problem. But I agree that WP:PROF and WP:RS should be measured. This is my first time to make effort to create and maintain a wiki page, so it might be not enough good in these two aspects due to my unfamiliarity to wiki editing rather than James Wang's contribution. That is why I am keeping remedying these two aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy xxy (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I have overgeneralized. it does however appear to me --and to other wikipedians-- that the pages seem to have been created in some sort of an organized drive, as judged by the extensive similarities between the information presented , the formatting, and the style of writing. The rest of us here do think that creating pages for people where a COI exists is in fact a problem, because it leads to uncritical presentation as in these articles. People usually do better writing from a little distance. the net effect of this apparent campaign is going to greatly decrease the likelihood of articles being kept at Wikipedia. You may be able to tell from my user page here that i work very hard to keep the articles on significant faculty, but I can only do it for truly significant faculty and well-written moderate articles. In general articles on faculty run into some difficulty from those who do not understand that the publication of notable papers is what demonstrates notability. It is therefore necessary to be careful. You might want to follow the following guidelines: 1/avoid adjectives saying how important the work is 2/ only include the 2 or 3 most cited papers--in peer reviewed journals, as determined by an objective source, preferably Scopus or Science Citation Index, and give the exact number of citations from there. 3/List only significant prizes--not faculty teaching awards and the like. Outside major research grants do very nicely. 4/include full publication details of all the books, including the ISBN, and exact references to reviews of them in published sources. Publishers blurbs are not acceptable sources, no matter how important the guy who wrote them. I will be glad to offer further help, and i could do so particularly well if you could put me in touch with whoever is coordinating this project. DGG (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello badge

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

Academic articles, what I think is important

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

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

AND

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

Has this account been compromised?

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

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

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

Speaking of deletions, I've been arguing for the validity of the concept in Xenofiction, but my characteristic bungling is hampering me. Could you give a hand? Thanks. --Kizor 02:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Antarctica cooling controversy

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

Regarding Sources

Hey David. I had a question about two of your edit summeries (here and here). In the second case (Azeroth), I did indeed look for references, and found only mirrors and references to World of Warcraft (which has its own Azeroth article). More importantly, I understand (and I am open to correction) that is the responsibility of persons adding facts to wikipedia to insure the verifiability of that information by providing sources. Thus, WP:V opens with:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. 
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be 
attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source 
should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

The articles I prod'ed had been tagged as needing sources for almost a year; which, I would think, is ample opportunity for references to be provided. Again, I could be reading WP:V wrong, in which case I am open to discussion about it. I don't have a bone to pick with either of these articles, just trying to clear up the backlog of unreferenced, unsourced material. Pastordavid (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Saturday, so let me answer at some length, for I do recognize the problem.

WP:V if interpreted strictly would condemn quite a number of WP articles, and most of the content in most WP articles. There was been a long discussion this Spring, for a suggested Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process for unsourced articles, following one a year earlier, Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles. The idea was to delete articles after X days of a unfilled request for sourcing. The original proposal was x=5, like Prod,or x=14.. As you will see from the talk, it was rejected soundly, on various grounds. the strongest negative argument, as I see it , was that amount of work in the time required was impossible. There were some discussions in various places about how, if the measure were passed, some sort of minimal sourcing could be done quickly--such as taking a standard textbook on a subject and adding it as a reference to every relevant article. The general feeling was that this level of sourcing was not much better than nothing, and it would be much more valuable to work, however slowly, on finding specifics. It was also realized that for any article, online sources would not be available, and perhaps 10% of Wikipedians have access to a really good conventional library--and fewer yet know how to use one.

It is somewhat easier now to source some classes of articles than it was even 6 months ago, due to the greater time scope of the free online NY Times, and the increasing coverage of Google Books Search. At present, my estimate of the time it would take me to do the full sourcing to proper standards of a long and difficult article, -- assuming I was working inside the Princeton library-- and with my years of experience about where information was likely to be found for things in general-- would be several days of full time work, comparable to writing a term paper on the topic. I could probably find some sort of basic sourcing at the rate of one or two an hour. Working online, with those resources remotely available to me, I can in fact usually find something in an hour, but it may not be very good; using free resources only, I could still do it in that time, but it may be just barely passable. I do this basic sourcing to rescue an article occasionally, about two a week. I have not yet had time to do a full article to what I consider the proper standards.

In practice, the requirement for sourcing is asked for only when it is desired to delete an article. But it is always desirable, and we should certainly work to that standard. The first steps will be teaching basic research techniques to undergraduates and high school students, increasing their willingness to consult physical libraries and librarians, improving the libraries they use--and increasing greatly the amount of material available free on the internet, as has been my emphasis in the last 10 years of my actual RW career promoting the open access movement.

But the requirement to source every fact in an article is really only necessarily for truly contentious material, of facts that have been challenged, and is usually interpreted as such. In addition, in some fields of science at WP, it is customary to do similar sourcing in detail, as one would for a professional review publication--personally, I consider such effort misguided and out of place in this sort of encyclopedia, which would do better to highlight the key references and a suitable number of general sources, as for an advanced undergraduate textbook. I think this one of the many examples where our rules do not match our practice. That we do not change the rules reflects first the inability to agree of any significant change, and second the (usually unspoken) desire to leave a wide range for wikilawyering.

As for these articles: "Charity care" I know is sourceable, and in fact I intend to source it. It is a very widely used term, and should give no difficulty. "Azeroth" has me as well as you a little concerned. I am wondering whether to treat it as a spelling variation, but I think it needs some professional attention from the few people here with the linguistic abilities. And I am not altogether sure it is worth that much effort. I am frankly working on the vague memory I've seen it used that way, outside of a game context.

You may then reasonably ask me --as I think you are--why I did not do so immediately. As I hinted above, its because there is too much to handle. I see my present role as a first responder performing triage, as I would rescue people from a natural disaster: pull them out of the rubble, patch them enough to let them survive a little longer, and leave an quick evaluation of what needs to me done for those who will later do the full job. I do it along with the other side of triage--putting the hopeless out of their misery, and not wasting time on those for whom there are unlikely to be the resources.

And that leads to what I now try to do also: recruit others to help in the rescue, and also in the real fixing to encyclopedic standards. I'm trying actively to recruit other librarians.

And in the meanwhile, I want to keep the ignorant bystanders from simply covering up and burying everything that looks like it might cause some difficulty. - - DGG (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD's

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

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

My father's MBE

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

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

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

Appleton's Cyclopedia

Thanks for your note on the Resource Exchange. I had no idea, I'm not that familiar with American sources. But it sounds like we better remove that Cyclopedia altogether, or what do you think? Key to the city 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as Resource exchange, yes. Nor do we need it. The period involved is now adequately covered by Google Book Search, and true sources are now readily available. But it is still useful where it can be confirmed elsewhere, and is still used academically--as i understand the question, it contains information not otherwise available, in many cases derived directly from relatives of the people covered or manuscript sources. But this is not really my period, and i think we need to investigate further the scholarly consensus. I think historians still do use it, but historians are trained in the use of multiple sources with the recognition that some will be unreliable and contradictory. Wikipedians in general do not have that skill. (which is why we here use secondary or tertiary sources and report all views expressed, being unqualified to do an adequate synthesis). DGG (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove it. Sounds like it would do more harm than good in the Resource Exchange context. Key to the city 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this from the academic / reliability side. I had envision it as being similar to Britannica 1911, generally valid for the time in which it was authored, but out of date today. Originally, I had concerns about it from a spam perspective, because in April 07 there were over 60 distinct domain names which pointed to the famousamericans.net content. --Versageek 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are all sorts of problems: the possible spam concern would have been using exclusively one of the several sites that offer it, but that can't really be avoided entirely any more than one can avoid listing JSTOR or project gutenberg. The copyvio is a serious matter until we find out which posted versions of the text are in fact original. I still think it can be used as a reference, but i would question an article where it was the only source. I've long been unhappy with not indicating exactly the material copied even when its public domain--I consider it an absolutely necessity to avoid plagiarism, though that view is not really the consensus here. And I am in general very unhappy with our use of the material from any of the older encyclopedia to fill our gaps, instead of writing properly sourced articles. Brittanica, & the Catholic Encyclopedia. that was a decision made way back, when WP was desperate for ordinary encyclopedic content--I wasn't here then, but even then I would have said it was a mistake, and now I fully support the project of revising every one of those articles. Now the old DNB is available as well, but at least it does have a good reputation for its period--though the older articles were not scholarly in the modern sense, and thousands of error reports have accumulated and been published. DGG (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the Virtualology site, which is a copy & attempted revision of the notoriously unreliable Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, its revised biographies are arranged separately, as explained there "If you would like to edit this biography please submit a rewritten biography in text form . If acceptable, the new biography will be published above the 19th Century Appleton's Cyclopedia Biography citing the volunteer editor." from, e.g. [1] However, I see no firm indication that this is in fact the case, and would like to see some examples of this. Ones directly from Appletons are not copyvios. Ones modified from Appleton's are copyvios, because the Virtualology site is copyrighted. Unfortunately, the original ones are also known not to be reliable or accurate.( It is additionally plagiarism to use them with just the tag at the bottom, without indicating that the entire article was copied and what the exact source is.) I therefore doubt that any material from this site can ever be incorporated in Wikipedia. If unmodified, they are not reliable. If modified, they are not public domain. DGG (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few Edited Samples

John Baptist Lamy Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnbaptistlamy/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.jhectorstjohndecrevecoeur/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Johannes Megapolensis Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johannesmegapolensis/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages John Mary Odin Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnmaryodin/ - 27k - Cached - Similar pages Manjiro Nakahama Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.manjironakahama/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Charles Francis Baillargeon Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons charlesfrancisbaillargeon/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages John Finley Rathbone Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnfinleyrathbone/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages John Taylor Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johntaylor3/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Cornelius O'Brien Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons corneliusobrien/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Louis Amadeus Rappe Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons louisamadeusrappe/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Sister Margaret Bourgeois Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons sistermargaretbourgeois/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Lucretia Maria Davidson Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons www.lucretiamariadavidson/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Ximenes Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscoximenes/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages John Francis O'Mahony Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnfrancisomahony/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages John Adams Webster Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnadamswebster/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Jose Flores Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanjoseflores/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Jarque Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscojarque/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Michael Joseph O'Farrell Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.michaeljosephofarrell/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Caballero Y Ocio Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons juancaballeroyocio/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Garcilaso de la Vega Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons garcilasodelavega/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Sebastian Garcilaso De La Vega Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons www.sebastiangarcilasodelavega/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Maria de Salvatierra Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanmariadesalvatierra/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Diego Garcia de Palacio Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons diegogarciadepalacio/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Edgar Philip Wadhams Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons edgarphilipwadhams/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Agustin Davila Y Padilla Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons agustindavilaypadilla/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Andr6s Avelino Caceres Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.andr6savelinocaceres/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Paul de Chomedey Maisonneuve Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.pauldechomedeymaisonneuve/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Juan Jose Escalona Y Calatayud Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.juanjoseescalonaycalatayud/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Lorenzo Hervas y PANDUR0 Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons lorenzohervasypandur0/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Anne Joseph Hyppolite Malartie Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons annejosephhyppolitemalartie/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages Mother Marie de L'incarnation Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.mothermariedelincarnation/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Atahualpa, Or Atabalipa (ah'-ta-oo-al'-pa) Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.atahualpaoratabalipa/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Dred Scott Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.dredscott/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages John Joachim Zubli Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons johnjoachimzubli/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Elzear Alexandre Taschereau Virtualologywelcomes editing and additions to the biographies. ... Edited Appletons elzearalexandretaschereau/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages John Joseph Kain Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnjosephkain/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Felix De (ath'-a-ra) Azara Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.felixdeazara/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Felipe Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons felipe/ - 24k - Cached - Similar pages Santa Rosa OF Lima Virtualologywelcomes editing and additions to the biographies. ... Edited Appletons www.santarosaoflima/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco De (cor'-do-vah) Cordova Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons franciscodecordova/ - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Frederic Auguste Bartholdi Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.fredericaugustebartholdi/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Bernardo Diaz Del Castillo Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons bernardodiazdelcastillo/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages Malta Capac Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.maltacapac/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Miguel Grau Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.miguelgrau/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Francisco Orellana Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.franciscoorellana/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages John Nepomucene Neumann Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.johnnepomuceneneumann/ - 26k - Cached - Similar pages Alvar Nufiez (kah-bay'-thah-de-vah'-ka) Cabeza De Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors .... Edited Appletons alvarnufiezcabezadeyaca/ - 23k - Cached - Similar pages Apostolos Valerianos Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.apostolosvalerianos/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdez Virtualologywarns that these 19th Century biographies contain errors ... Edited Appletons www.gonzalofernandezdeoviedoyvaldez/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages --71.42.169.223 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Prods

Please remember to give a reason when you enter the Prod. It makes it very hard to work with them otherwise.DGG (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi DGG,

A huge number (6000) of articles are listed at User:Eagle_101/potential_crap_3/4. These articles were prodded because they were listed there. I'm not about to put that in the edit summary, however. I don't want anyone to feel insulted that their articles were proposed for deletion because they are "potential crap". Firsfron of Ronchester 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It just says "potential" . It isnt actually his view--you should read the notes--he says "This list contains all articles as of around October 17 that have no wikilinks and at least one external link....Some of these will need to be deleted. " It's just an algorithm for articles worth a look at that may, as he says, have been "items that were missed by RC patrol"

It is not a hit list for deletion, just for re-examination. You must use your own personal judgement. if you prod an article, you take responsibility for having read it and evaluated it. And you must then give a reason--your reason. DGG (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read the notes. I chose a small number of articles, and prodded most of them. These are "potential crap", and you can deprod them if you like, but then you must take responsibility for them. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I corrected that mistake right away, you know. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, in correcting the prod of Robert Silverberg, the SF writer, winner of 2 Hugos and 6 Nebulas--and so asserted in the lede paragraph--you gave the edit summary "fix bot edit" ; looking at the timing, you were prodding them at the rate or 8 a minute, so you must indeed have been relying on a bot: a bot, deleting based upon a selection prepared by an automated screen.

Not only I, but two other editors have been deprodding the ones you have been placing, and commenting. But let's look at some of them, from myself and the other editors:

David Crichton a world champion freestyle skier

[David Ligare], a painter with works in MOMA, the Uffizi, and Thyssen-Bornemisza;

David Miln Smith on cover of Sports Illustrated as first man to swin from Africa to Europe across Straits of Gibraltar

David Edwards (ArtScientist) a professor of Biomedical Engineering at Harvard University & a novelist

According to WP:PROD,"Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate" DGG (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am generally an inclusionist, David, but many of the articles I tagged are in terrible shape, and have been for months. If some are salvageable, salvage them. If some are tagged incorrectly, it can be fixed: they weren't speedied. I sincerely don't know why you brought up an article I correctly de-tagged myself. I suppose I could dredge through your edits and find something you'd mistagged and corrected immediately, and then bring it up on your talk page, making no mention of the fact that you had corrected it yourself right away. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I am one of the "two other editors" mentioned, but I did de-prod an article in the group. Regardless I'd like to look past what seems to be a one-off failure to fully vet the prods, and look at a larger issue this action addressed, one which all of us are concerned about: solving the cleanup backlog and the many dubious articles associated with it.

At a steady 27K cleanup tag group count going on for months, despite efforts of many to clear tags (including myself at a few a week), it is clear that current cleanup efforts are barely holding steady. What does tagging an article mean if it is one in tens of thousands and the tag backlog is two years? The cleanup tag group fails to be meaningful and the information it provides to flag a problematic article is lost in a sea of other tags, old and new. We have effectively lost the use of a powerful tool to fix problems with Wikipedia. Too often now the tags are used as a flag for "I don't know what the hell to do about this mess, but I can't quite speedy it, so I'll stick a notability or wikify or general cleanup tag here and maybe another editor can figure it out." Probably have done that myself a few times.

The one-at-a-time effort is not working; an appealing solution is a semi-automated or bulk-processing approach to clearing out or cleaning up bad articles. I cannot fault Firsfron for trying this out on a small scale. I do have concerns with the actual implementation and side with DGG on the basic issues of over-prodding, but I certainly sympathize—no, more than sympathize—I support the basic concept of mass clearing, be it as tag removal or deletion of "crappy articles" when notability is neither asserted nor apparent.

Bottom line is that while I understand why this particular prod session is problematic, and why DGG and others are not particularly happy with the results, there are excellent reasons for experimenting with new solutions to the cleanup/bad article problem, if basic groundrules to avoid notability conflicts can be established and scrupulously followed. Any ideas? -- Michael Devore 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Michael. I hope DGG won't mind if I respond to your comments here. I do apologize to all involved for stepping on toes here. My attempt was to help clear the backlog by prodding a few articles, not upset anyone by prodding notable subjects or potentially salvageable articles; I figured it was just a prod tag, easily removable by anyone if they felt it was justified to keep them. I'm not protesting any of the removed tags, but I see a danger in just doing this or this. Just slapping an unreferenced tag on an article won't help when it's been tagged for clean-up since March. These articles aren't improving, and no amount of adding maintenance tags will help them. The bot identified 6,000 of them (probably there are many more), so the 36 I prodded are a drop in the bucket. As I stated earlier, I'm generally an inclusionist: if something can be salvaged, it should be. But for the most part, these aren't being salvaged. They're just sitting there, collecting maintenance tags. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If I might chip in here. One of the examples Firsfron gave of my 'unhelpful' edits was to deprod DataEase and tag it as unreferenced. Before Firsfron prodded this article, it didn't have any tags on it to indicate that it needed to be improved. DataEase is a highly notable piece of database software, and the article simply needs tidying up and references adding. I sympathise with Firsfron's frustration with the backlog of articles, but to prod an article with an edit history going back to June 2006, with dozens of contributing editors, and without any tags to prompt other editors into improving the article, is extremely poor. Irrespective of how frustrated you are or how big the backlog is, prod is only for uncontroversial deletion candidates. Another example is Darren Fleary, an international rugby league player. The article is clearly about a notable subject. It was a small stubby article, which had external links that could have been converted into references, and again it had no tags to indicate that the article needed improving before it was prodded by Firsfron. If editors are prodding articles that have been tagged as unreferenced or with unclear notability for some time, that's fine by me, but at least give other editors a chance to improve them first. Being on an editor's own list of "potential crap" isn't going to help anybody else to improve these articles.--Michig 09:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noted DGG's comments below, and appreciate them, both as advice and as editing motivation. I do want to state, though, that there's more to clean-up than adding an unreferenced tag: that article has no fewer than seventeen screenshots, all claimed to be in the public domain. The same user who uploaded all of these removed the clean-up tag originally on the article, and replaced it with this comment, which stayed in the article for over a month. This article needs serious attention. At best, it needs clean-up and referencing. At worst, it contains 17 copyright violations. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's on my list to go and try to clean this article up, but if you want to have a go yourself before I get the chance, please feel free to do so.--Michig 11:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, looking at this one, I too see some problems. Unless it's really important software the detail seems possibly excessive--even if not copvio. But the images are claimed as PD, and this does not seem to have ever been challenged. If there's possible copyvio, challenging that is a good first step, as it can be unambiguous--and it does get attention. Looks like the article would hold without them, however. This exactly illustrates what I said about the need to go one article at a time. Michg's ,yours, and my comments on this particular article should be copied to the article talk page as a start of an appropriate discussion--an obviously better place to discuss the merits of it . 11:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• If I knew an easy way to improve the project, I would have have let people know before this. But there is no easy way, and there will never be one. Information systems don't work that way; they need constant upkeep, and the larger they get, the harder the upkeep is. Upgrading an information system to a higher level of accuracy is even more difficult. Yet we need to do so. The initial standards were too low, and the reliance upon community input too naive. The reliance of others on WP is greater by far than could have been imagined, and we must accept the responsibility to live up to the demands now being made on us
• I have spent my career working with even more complex information systems than WP, involving many times more than two million article sets of information, maintained in a cooperative way by widely dispersed and loosely coordinated organisations. They have needed to deal with a wider variety and amount of information and users than they were ever designed for, and it has been very difficult to get them to work at the necessary level. Yet they have keep going, and improved enough to at least minimally meet the needs. It has taken the patient dedicated work of thousands of people with many different skills, all recognizing that most of what they did would be only temporary, and would only just serve to get by, and would not fully solve the problem. But they have kept the provision of formal information to society from collapsing. I consider this is a wonderful thing to have collective accomplished, and I can think of no more rewarding career than to have supported in this way the world's other professions--even for a single generation.
• Let's apply this here. We are dealing with a new paradigm for the construction of a major information resource. Those who invented the powerful architecture did recognize the intellectual possibilities; no one could have fully imagined the social implications. some of it, like AI, has gone very slowly compared to what was predicted, some, like remote social networking, very much more quickly. I ascribe the strength to the existence of parallel systems: the 2.0 world consists of much more than Wikipedia, and different people will find their own homes within it. Let's look at our strengths--the strength is number and diversity of amateurs, and the retention of some respect for intellectual authority together with cooperative working. The pillars--comprehensiveness, NPOV, Verifiability, freedom from censorship, mutual respect. To work this way requires modesty. the responsibility for improving WP rests on all of uys, but is dependent on any individual one of us.
• I came here, and tried to rescue every important article, to upgrade everything I knew enough about, to add everything important in my subject, to supply every needed reference, to help everyone who needed it. I've learned my limits. But i've been also a teacher, and that is how to multiple one's efforts. We ourselves cannot do very much personally, confronted with the size of the problem. But we can maintain our own standards, and teach them to others. they in their turn will teach and recruit others. Like all organisations hoping to have a wide influence, we must grow or collapse.
• In a practical sense, there are strata of articles.

Many of us choose to spend some time at least keeping the very worst and most destructive new ones out of WP in the first place. I don't do much of this, but i do delete a dozen or so a day. Looking at New pages, i think we are keeping up here. I was a skeptic about patrolled versions,but it seems to help.

The next part is of improving the totally inadequate articles, keeping in mind that stubs are acceptable, per WP:STUB--if notability appears likely, they do not even need references. The first step in this is to at least get them tagged so they do not escape attention. The second step is to get them worked on--the tag is sufficient that they will not be ignored indefinitely, for there are various clean up projects, such as wikiproject notability. the idea is to clean up the oldest first-but to do it with an eye to improving and keeping every article that can get improved enough to be worth keeping. Deletion policy is clear that deletion is the last resort for the hopeless articles. I do a little work with that project,and a bit with some others.

A later step is adding suitable references, not just to those without any but to those where they are really inadequate. This will be a long and slow procedure--it can take hours to do it properly for a single article. I try for one a week.

Then there is getting articles up to GA status. I honour those who to do it, but i find other priorities.

My actual priority, as people probably realise, is rescuing articles that would otherwise be deleted. i cant help them all, but I certainly try to help all those where I think it might make a difference. If people would only delete articles that they really thought hopeless, I wouldn't have to spend as much time on this. so i try to urge people to fix, rather than nominate for deletion, unless clearly unfixable.

Then I would have time for what i really want to do,which is improve the overall quality by adding articles on important things in areas I am most prepared to work on and most personally interested, where we do not yet have any. For example, we are still missing about 1/3 the members of the national academy of sciences.

• so in summary, I do have some straightforward advice--although I will not say it is exactly easy--try to improve articles patiently, one at a time, and encourage others to do so, one at a time. We ought not abandon the work, but neither can we expect to finish it. This was said of the whole world; it applies to our part of it. DGG (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally with what you've said. One of the problems, I feel, is that when articles are proposed for deletion, they are immediately visible to a large number of editors who monitor PROD's and AFD's (including myself), who will often take the opportunity to address the concerns raised by the nominator. Articles tagged as needing references, cleanup, etc., are generally less 'visible' - I know we can find these by the categories that come with the tags, but I find this less easy than reviewing the day's AFD's and PRODs. If I'm missing an easier way of finding articles that need work, please feel free to point it out. I quite enjoy taking deficient articles and improving them, but at the moment I'm unlikely to notice articles needing work that are not on my 1000+ article watchlist. I would imagine that there are far more editors regularly reviewing proposed deletions than routinely reviewing articles tagged as needing work, which is something that perhaps needs to be addressed in WP. --Michig 11:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly the best reference for cleanup is found at the page Category:Cleanup_by_month, which encompasses all articles tagged with some form of cleanup notice. I refer to the page regularly. I further note, unhappily, that the heretofore reasonably steady 27K+ or 1.33% of all articles has just recently crept up to well over 28K, or 1.36%. Michael Devore 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice requested

DGG, there is an edit war going on at Joseph Schlessinger‎. It started with two editors (Truther thruther and Letsnotlie), but now a third name pops up, likely a sockpuppet (Hillhealth). I have put 3RR warnings on the talk pages of these editors, but they just ignore and keep reverting each other with sometimes dozens of edits an hour. The contentious material concerns allegations about sexual harassment. I reported this BLP issue at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, but nothing seems to happen. Is there another place where I should report this activity? Thanks, Wim --Crusio 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Coren protected it for 7 days a little while ago. That gives people a little while to resolve it. Ask him to lift the block when things settle down. 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC) I hope my subsequent comments there did not confuse the issue further. DGG (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

DGG, feel free to restore the commented out section if you feel it necessary, but I think that given its contents being the cause of the edit war, waiting for some sort of consensus to emerge is safer. Those are just my two currency subunits, however, and I won't wheel war over you for this. — Coren ^(talk) 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Coren, I too want to wait for additional comments. I gave my view on the talk page, and now lets see what other think. If more sources appear, that may settle it. I feel no need to rush--I already made one mistake there by going too quickly. And it's clear from the article that in this instance the sex may not even be the most bitterly fought part of it.DGG (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Rfc at Regent University

Pardon me for being obtuse, but I am unclear what your position is. Monica Goodling is listed vis-a-vis her involvement in the Attorneygate controversy -- she is listed in the alumni section. The issue here is whether, in addition to that mention, a discussion involving her resignation and involvement in the scandal deserves a place in the Reputation section concerning the school. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 07:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no such discussion in the present version. I recognize it is alluded to in some of the references. I do not see that as problematic. What exactly am I missing? DGG (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear. There is no other mention -- that is the issue at hand. Should there be? The pros and cons were discussed here but the RfC nicely summarizes the two positions. With your additional comments on the talk page, I now understand your take on it. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Henkelman

Was there a reason that you changed a perfect Speedy tag on this page into a ProD with "proper tag" as only explanation? It seems a bit bizarre, since the article made absolutely no claims to notability, there is no other evidence that the person has any notability, and the tag that was on the article was perfectly "proper"... Oh, and perhaps you could archive your talk page, it takes quite a while to load (almost 300K!) Fram 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unencyclopedic school essay" was the reason given, and that is not a reason for speedy, though it is for prod. The article may have been titled Andrew Henkelman, who apparently wrote it, but the article content was not about him but an essay of his about a poem by Longfellow. You chose to delete it as if it were actually on Henkelman, giving a reason of CSD A7 non-notable--this is a reasonable interpretation, and I did consider changing the tag to A7 myself, but the tag that was actually on the article was not a reason for speedy, and I wanted to send the message to the ed. who tagged it. If I had changed the tag, by the way, i would have let someone else delete the article. Except for obvious vandalism and nonsense and G10, I do not delete articles that I tag. It is permitted to do so, but I think it should not be. I would certainly not have done it after a fellow admin had removed the tag, for whatever reason. If you disagreed with what I did, you should have asked me, not just reverted. But since the article did need to get removed one way or another, no harm has been done from any standpoint, and I'm not complaining. . DGG (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (for archiving as well, by the way). I don't see what you mean, actually. Mentifisto only added a db-bio tag, without comments[20], so "unencylopedic school essay" was not the reason given (it was the reason given by you to prod it, but not by the original tagger). If you see it as an essay, you should have either deleted it as A1 (no context to understand the title of the article), or have moved the page. Anyway, it's not that important, I just couldn't understand why one would decline this quite obvious speedy. For your other points: I often delete articles without tags, but this was a case where it was already tagged by someone else... As for reverting another admin: on serious non urgent issues (debatable block lengths or so), I discuss first. For rather unimportant things (the method of deleting, since we both wanted it deleted anyway), I don't see the harm. I wouldn't redelete it if you undeleted it, for example, since then I would start a pretty pointless revert war. Fram (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

according to current consensus at WP:CSD, school essays-- or anything -- can only be deleted as nocontext when there is so little is impossible to tell what the article is about & cannot be used for non-encyclopedic stuff of this sort. I do not intend to undelete, since it would in any case be removed sooner or later. DGG (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Schlessinger

DDG: when you get a chance, could you please take a look at talk page again on Joseph Schlessinger? I'd be interested in hearing your honest thoughts on the sexual harassment section (content item #3)? It's all from legitimate news sources and publications, including Yale University publications. You made some commentary before, so I thought I'd invite you back. letsnotlie is sort of throwing a fit about it,.... Thanks for your time!Truther truther 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

commented there. I assume you have also asked Coren for further comments.But do not attempt to determine or post the name of a WP ed. who uses a pseudonym. DGG (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Schlessinger Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Edits

DDG: I though I'd run this past you before posting to the joseph schlessinger page. Per your request, I've posted the courant article to his talk page and edited the section to read as follows. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. ThanksTruther truther (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The complaint was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) alleged Joseph Schlessinger initiated numerous conversations with her about sex, showed her hard-core pornography websites and nude photographs, bragged to her about the number of women he had slept with, mentioned incidents of sexual infidelity during his business travels, told jokes about penis size, and commented on the size of her breasts and style of her underwear.

Further and more specific detail of the sexual harassment lawsuit taken from the testimony of Mary Beth Garceau regarding sexual infidelity, the number of women Joseph Schlessinger claims to have slept with and the nude photography that was shown, are not suitable for Wikipedia, but may be found by clicking on the following links for articles on websites for The Yale Daily News as well as CBS News

Garceau claims that Yale University did nothing to stop the sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign because of the situation. A spokesperson for Yale University initially told the Yale Daily News in an interview that "they'll fight the suit in court." Several months later on however, the case was settled out of court and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public.

glad you asked

I've rewritten it below. The objection raised on the talk page to putting the details of the harassment in the WP article was perfectly correct--this is not appropriate content as it is ultimately sourced only by her allegation--BLP would not permit it where the actual content was not a matter of public confession or guilty verdict or widespread reporting for a much more public figure. If anyone wants to know, it's in the references. Some of the references were duplicates; I removed them, keeping the better of the citations--the CBS for example is documented directly and it is not appropriate to give the indirect ref in globaldialysis. I do not think the EPS source is usable--its merely a news service run by a firm of employment attorneys. DGG (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The complaint was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) alleged Joseph Schlessinger engaged in sexually-based harassment.,,,

Garceau claims that Yale University did nothing to stop the sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign because of the situation. A spokesperson for Yale University initially told the Yale Daily News in an interview that "they'll fight the suit in court." Several months later on however, the case was settled out of court; the terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public.

Schlessinger Harassment

Really? That's the only thing that can be mentioned by wikipedia standards?? It really doesn't tell anything while the rest of the page goes into great detail about so many other things. I was under the impression that information could be summarized; I though Wikipedia was the place for that! Would the liberal use of the words "alleged" and "accused" make any difference?

True, it is only an allegation, but it is also a sworn deposition and a formal lawsuit. ultimately it will be your decision because I am new at this. Thanks. Truther truther (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC) It's quite enough for an encyclopedia:it's the appropriate summary. Remember, we still link to the sources. Anything else I think is a violation of BLP. If Coren or others disagree, I can reconsider.DGG (talk)

Comment I made

Well I am sorry if you took offense to it, but I mean to speak just as a wikipedian, and about that I am deathly serious. Your arguments seem to indicate you do not understand the notability policy with regards to fiction, and there is nothing wrong with that per se, as it is a very difficult policy to get at first. Some of my early experiences on wikipedia involved writing in-universe unnotable articles on my favorite fictional topics, but eventually I realized what the threshold for inclusion was, and eventually I had to transfer some of those articles to fan wikis and delete them from here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to convince me I am ignorant, yes, this is the place, not AfD. I don't mind in the least, because I intend to do something similar--not that you're ignorant though, just that you're wrong. As far as I can see from the talk page, all aspects of N:Fiction continue to be disputed. Many of the things it relates to on, such as the distinction between primary and secondary sources, seem to be disappearing, and almost everything in WP:NOT is also challenged from all directions. I expect ongoing discussion at AfD will be the way to modify them all to what they ought to be--the flexible practice that will be the consensus once wpedians in general understand the implications, and accept the need of accommodating the 21st century.

Our directions at WP seems opposite. When I first came, I was somewhat startled by what seemed the absurd detail of the SF and game and video articles. I then realized that they were in fact the core of Wikipedia, and that detail properly organized aids understanding. I want good full plot and character and background summaries--not for the benefit of the fans, who will use the specialised wikis, but for those who want to find out about these things without prior immersion in them. If anything, most WP articles were not really adequate, and the problem was not detail but quality and lack of skill in the writing--especially the incomprehensible blow-by-blow plot summaries. Nor do I do not defend long articles about clearly minor individual characters; I prefer summary style and lists for the really minor topics. What I want in WP is better quality, not narrower coverage.

In-universe I interpret as meaning the sort of fan articles which pretend that it isn't really a game, but the real world, and goes on variations from there. I think plot and characters and background in fiction can & should be sourced from the fiction itself, and notability determined from even the most non-conventional sources. So I advocate what within our core principles I think ought to be the consensus. You've been here a few months more than I have, but I think I've been doing enough work at AfD to know the different opinions--and certainly been here long enough to see them change, sometimes for the better. AfD, for all its faults, is free from OWN. I like to deal with many subjects, so I don't join all the discussions--how could anyone, at least anyone who thinks it wrong to use a copy and paste argument -- only those where I think I might make a difference or have something particular to add, or where I am particularly bothered by a string of indiscriminate deletions or overconfident arguments. I sometimes regret taking time from my true interests to defend articles on subjects I don't really personally care about, but I know that what I do really care about is regarded by many as of very minor importance, and the way to get comprehensive coverage is to accommodate all interests. DGG (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Striver

Hi, I read your comments on the talk page of my dear friend,Striver. Thanks for your friendly advices , although he abandoned WP. I knew many former active members who aren't active at present. This may because of changing the situation which needs high quality standards or some other reasons. I hope there would be a process to recover wikipedians who are affected by Wikistress.

Thanks for your good faith ad attempts to save depressed wikipedians. God bless you.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I know what you mean, but I think we need something more. We need a guideline for Hadith taskforce. You see, there is a branch of Islamic knowledge which discuss about authenticity of Hadith. I didn't mean that Striver's articles were good. I just wanted to thank you due to your attention to him while most of us were unaware. --Seyyed(t-c) 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hate to jump into a thread, but I encountered User:Striver a year ago, around the time that my own WikiStress led me to abandon my active username and simply lurk as an anon-IP ... took me a while to find the account where we crossed swords, but the Good Thing about being anal-retentive is that I always leave a good paper trail. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

JITP

You prod' Journal of Information Technology & Politics however, the article describes that this is the renamed Journal of E-Government, which has been published and is probably notable [21]. Would it be worth renaming it to the Journal fo E-Government until the name Journal of Information Technology & Politics takes on as the main usage? Mbisanz (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, certainly add the history of the journal! Start by adding the information to this new page, under the new title. But see the various factors affecting journal notability at Wikiproject Academic Journals. [22] In particular, where is it indexed, who is the editor, what are the most notable papers it has published, what is its rank in Journal citation Reports. I'll take a look and remove the prod if I think its ok, or comment further on its talk page. . DGG (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of previous history ([23]); if there is one, I'd suggest keeping it. PS. Not a good sign. The prod, added to this, seems to have been the proverbial insult to the injury :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not in WOS, but is in Scopus. Only 3 years have been published altogether. Of the 30 or so articles, only 2 have been cited, and that only once, & by their respective authors. But it's early times for that, in the social sciences. At the moment only 19 libraries in WorldCat. I'd classify it as trying to become notable. Borderline. I've commented on the COI noticeboard.DGG (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Lewis Rigg

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

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

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

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

Computer Gaming World list of the best games of all time

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

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

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

Opinion

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

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

Virtualology

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

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

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

Thank you

Wow, much obliged.[24] Durova^Charge! 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A little help on TES

Just about all the TES articles, including the ones that were good and sourced, just got wiped out by admins. See problem is, hardly a consensus was reached, most articles tied keep v delete and everybody seems to blindly following the mantra that it isn't notable because it isn't on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. These articles should be reopened and the discussion should continue, I thought progress on a compromise was being made until they were deleted. They seemed to jump to deletion instead trying to improve or establish notability, in fact not one of them even tried to find something that suggested notability, I did but no one cared. Please A little help would be great. Articles deleted so far, Black Marsh, Morrowind (province), Cyrodiil.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC) The best strategy here will be to concentrate on saving the ones not yet deleted. Try to save a few. Deletion review can be undertaken if there ever is consensus; at the moment it will just open up too many fronts. Please see the talk page for WP Fiction for the current almost total lack of agreement. I'm not at this point sure there is any common idea at all on what the policy is or ought to be. I also suggest joining in the discussion there--my current position you will see, but it amounts to an admission that we have no agreement. But the people who like the currently one-sided wording are trying to deny it there is even conflict, and are finding themselves fighting to say that there isnt any. DGG (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, I'm fighting the deletions tooth and nail, but I don't care that much about some the remaining ones. Cyrodiil was one best articles and it got deleted despite heavy resistance, it was 6 vs 6 in keep/delete. I don't know if there is anything I can do, I keep saying that we can work together to improve the articles to be like argonian but they don't seem confident it can be done.TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My advice is that the best chances for deletion review are the combination articles on minor characters, etc. If you think Cryodil is sourceable further, good, but I must tell you i havent the least idea of where video games are written about, though Im trying to learn. I do know there is no point whatever going to DR without a very strong case. 6-6 in something like this is not alone sufficient to say it should be nonconsensus unless you can prove the ones discarded as not according to policy were according to policy. You might want to enable your email or use mine, by the way. I cannot handle adequately more than a few concurrent discussions. DGG (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Randell Mills and Plagiarism

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

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

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

Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89.

Currently a user is deleting all references to Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, a contemporaneous source of information for 19th c. Americans much as Giorgio Vasari's encyclopedia is for 16th c. Italian artists. That is to say, it's not just some random website. Talking to the user produces this kind of response to others, so I've just left a brief note. I hope I may be spared any personal contact with this user. The damage being done is not minor. I'm struggling to insert the following footnote in the few little articles I watch: "Dates and other biographical information in this article are drawn from Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography 1887-89." The website with on-line text is spam-blocked here (no one need explain that to me, please). I am posting here because the user's boilerplate edit summary is "clean up, & remove link see WP:AN using AWB" ——but I see nothing here that would justify wholesale, unconsidered deletions; tomorrow another such a one will no doubt slap demands for references and citations on the same articles. At any rate I leave this in your capable hands. No need to involve me further, please. --Wetman (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Appleton's is not considered a reliable source; articles sourced to it are being gradually cleaned up and more reliable sources sought. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC) absolutely so--notorious for inclusion of false biographies of non-existent people, see the article on it. This has been discussed here at some length. We are indeed removing all references to it, and all articles depending only on it for documentation will need to be carefully checked, and the facts in all articles using it as a source in any way re-verified elsewhere. DGG (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We did our homework, despite some editors above maintaining the contrary. Without giving away too much, There are 202 known fictitious biographies such as Pierre de Vogué (http://famousamericans./jeanpierredevogue/) and Vicente y Bennazar (http://famousamericans./andresvicenteybennazar/ ) from the research Virtualology has done on the Encyclopedia. It was traced to one employee who was paid by the article and thus his work has been thorough researched over the years turning up the 202.

Most importantly, the BULK (approximately 180 of the false sketches) found are written on obscure European scientists who supposedly travelled to the America’s to study natural history. Examples of sketches include, the biography of Charles Henry Huon de Penanster, (famousamericans./ charleshenryhuondepenanster/) identified as a French botanist, whose bio parallels Nicolas Thiery de Menonville (whose genuine biography also appears in Appleton's). Nicolas Henrion's, (famousamericans./NicolasHenrion/) a French scientist listing reports that he arrived in South America in 1783, when Asiatic cholera was in full bloom. The epidemic first broke out in South America only in 1835. Miguel da Fonseca e Silva Herrera, (famousamericans./ migueldafonsecaesilvaherrera/) supposedly was a gold medal Brazilian historian, from the historical institute of Rio de Janeiro in 1820 but the society was not founded until 1838. Some good references on the topic are:

Barnhart, John H. "Some Fictitious Botanists." Journal of the New York Botanical Garden 20 (September 1919): 171-81. Dobson, John B.. "The Spurious Articles in Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography—Some New Discoveries and Considerations." Biography 16(4) 1993: 388-408. O'Brien, Frank M. "The Wayward Encyclopedias", New Yorker, XII (May 2, 1936), pp. 71-74. Schindlir, Margaret Castle. "Fictitious Biography." American Historical Review 42 (1937), pp. 680-90.

The rest of the boigraphies are IMPORTANT historical accounts of exceptional men and women whose deeds in the Americas were notable at the very least. These are a exceptional additions to the Wikipedia Project. It is wrong to blacklist these sites PS YOU HAVE TO ADD THE NET TO THE LINKS AS THEY ARE BLACKLISTED --97.97.197.9 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I shall do some further checking, but my understanding as confirmed by my limited research work with it is that the biographies are based to a considerable extent on unedited personal information from relatives and similar unreliable sources. in the one or two articles cross-checked in Wikipedia, details are wrong. What is needed here are some expert opinions--i think I am in a position to obtain them, and i will do so in the next day or two. i would have no objection to a moratorium on article deletions in the meantime. Nonetheless, for the references added to articles, even if we decide they are reliable, they must cite appletons, with possibly a convenient link to the online version. DGG (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, Wikisource is now collecting biographical entries in this work. s:Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography. IMO it is silly to blacklist this important work; editors may not have vetted every entry as well as they should have, but that doesnt mean every entry is bogus. By putting this work on Wikisource, critical analysis can occur on the talk page, and annotations can occur inline. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

other sources

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

There are two. The older one is Dictionary of American Biography 1928-1937, and supplements through 1985. Most college libraries and large public libraries will have it in print, locations at. [25]--not all libraries will have all the supplements. I do not know if it is online.

the newer one, greatly preferred if available, is American National Biography Oxford Univ press, Print and online. Print in about 1800 libraries--essentially every college library and many large public--a listing can be found at [26]. (if you enter your zip code it will show nearby libraries) Online in at least 200 libraries and library systems--partial listing at [27]. They have a personal subscription at $25/month.

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

there is a convenient free online bioof the day at [28]. Todays listing is Fiorello H. La Guardia. There is also, free availability to the biographies in every monthly update during the current month, at [29] The lastest is october 2007, and contains 43 articles--most but not all are in WP, but some are without good references. Between them, that's 800 articles a year available free. This would be a convenient way to help build the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I got your message

You wrote on my talk page,

Saying someone is a full professor at a major university may or may not be notable , but it is unquestionably enough of an assertion of notability to pass speedy. if you question whether there is enough notability, use prod or afd. (btw, at afd, 99% of full professors turn out to be notable).DGG (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that between the time I nominated the article on Svetlana Leontief Alpers and the time you declined the deletion, the article has been edited, and, in its current version, I would not have voted for deletion in an AfD discussion. Her achievements and status were not mentioned in the version I originally saw.

I was recently involved in an AfD discussion about an article on an academic which resulted in deletion, with me being a dissenter per WP:PROF. The article had COI issues, but those turned out to not have an effect on the final decision to delete. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 10:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

apologies, since I apparently was not clear. There are two levels. One is the notability required by WP:N as explained by WP:PROF, to have an article in Wikipedia, which requires a substantial reputation recognized by third parties and normally shown by multiple heavily-cited articles in peer reviewed journals in science, or by a number of books published by established scholarly presses in the humanities. The other, applying to all articles, is an assertion or indication of some sort of notability, which is all that is required to pass speedy. Almost anything is acceptable here, even though it will clearly not pass WP:N. Saying someone has published a book, saying someone is a professor, saying someone has an award, any of these all by itself is an assertion of notability. It doesn't have to be proven--it just has to be something that a reasonable person would think might possibly qualify for an article. The idea is to exclude bios saying, for example, John is the coolest guy in my school, or those saying Peter Smith worked as an accountant for 20 years and then retired. We get dozens of each of these types a day, and of course we want to get rid of them as quickly as possible. But anything that might possibly be developed into an article is not speedy. If it asserts something that seems clearly inadequate, the best course is PROD; if the prod is challenged, which usually does not happen if a good explanation is written for the author, then AfD. If the article is undeveloped, then an tag for "expand", or "notability" or "unreferenced" together with an explanation to the author--possibly followed up in a month or two--is the best way.

Clearly, you very well understand the first part about actual notability. As for the second, if you have any doubts about what i am saying, by all means recheck WP:CSD or ask at its talk page. The article initially met only the minimal pass for speedy. Later, as you say, it showed actual notability. DGG (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

re:CSD

I've been helping out with vandalism patrol for quite a while. Now I'm trying to help out with New pages patrol. I have read policy but some things are a judgment call, which takes time to develop. As a relative newcomer to this job I will make mistakes and try to learn from them. So to help me learn could you please answer two questions: 1) Do you agree that A7 includes a "group of people" or an "organization" not just a company, and therefore my nomination of Quintana Roo Speleological Survey was appropriate? 2) Where in WP:CSD does it say that an editor should not restore a CSD request that has been mistakenly removed?

My thinking based on your edit summary was that you removed my CSD simply because it was not a company. I knew it wasn't a company, thought that it qualified as an organization, so thought that your removal was incorrect. Now I think the article is about something the organization created rather than an organization. If your edit summary had pointed out that the subject was not a group of people, company, or organization then I would have understood your objection and not renominated for deletion.

Please realize that regarding New pages patrol I am a relative newcomer and I suggest that WP:BITE should apply. The tone of your note to me implied that I knew I was doing wrong. But I did not know that it was wrong to restore a CSD that I thought had been mistakenly removed. E.g. if the creator had removed it or a vandal had removed it I would have been correct to restore it. I still do not see anything in WP:CSD or in the CSD template to say that an editor should not restore a CSD that he thinks was mistakenly removed. So I did not think that what I was doing was wrong. I've learned better and won't do this in the future.

I suggest that your tone toward me could have been milder. Look I'm just trying to help out - to improve the encyclopedia. Before I added the {{db-bio}}, I made minor edits to that article to improve it in case it was judged worth keeping. I know you're pretty busy as an admin but a minute extra time writing a gentle note to a user who is trying to be helpful might avoid driving away a helpful editor. Frankly, I just don't need the hassle that Wikipedia sometimes produces. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LCC

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

User talk:DonnPulley

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

all we need is about his career, not his personal life. As for the sort of material there might be, see [30] and [31] and [32] And there are thousands of books on FDR & Truman. I wish I had time for this one. Looking at non digital resources is basic to adequate work for anything except studies on the internet itself, though I have to remind even myself frequently. :) DGG (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Don Page / Betacommand

I saw your comment on Betacommand's userpage. He is not an administrator anymore since May, so he can't restore the page. I looked at the deleted page, it was tagged as A7 (biography not asserting notability). You may want to go to deletion review, do you have any reliable sources about this person? —Random832 16:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Relevance Question

Since you've said your a librarian, and from your user page I gather you work for a university or public library, could you take a look at this diff and make sure I'm presenting this academic-related issue in a relevant and even manner [33] ? I tried very hard on this one to source every assertion and be evenhanded to both sides. Mbisanz (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

SD

Replied at my talk page. Could you also archive your talk page, it's insanely long, with a load time that rivals the Soviet Union article. Not to mention the slow typing. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Did you even investigate half of the "questionable" deletions I made? you are telling me that is not spam? Maybe you should review this page. Happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

still working on it. I want to consider carefully and do full justice to your arguments. Be aware of the distinction between SPAM and the criterion for Speedy, which is "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" If they are fixable, not speedy. DGG (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My motivations

Thanks for your note. I'd like to explain my motivation here, which I think has been misunderstood due to my admittedly high level of persistence -- there's been a lot of rhetoric directed at me that I think is wholly off base ([34] [35] [36] [37]). My interest in this was sparked when I found little coverage of these topics outside the movement itself, which led to the "independent sources" question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fringe theories noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

Ram Chet Chaudhary

Hi DGG, You removed the prod from this article noting that there were enough publications to establish notability. However, these are cited only very rarely accortding to WoS of Google Scholer (the most is 17 citations, and I am not even sure that this concerns the same authos as it is on virusses and insects). Do you think it should be taken to AfD instead? Best, --Crusio (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought hard about this. One of the publications--the 3rd-- was a textbook published by OUP India, and it may have been a major one in the country. There are also publications from FAO Rome, & he's also enough of an expert to have worked on problems in many countries, so he can claim international recognition. I've run a lot of Indian scientists thru WoS, long before coming here, & the problem is that most of the journals that would cite them are not in WoS; most of them are not in GS either, though an increasing number will be with the growth of open access publishing. So if they work on regional topics, as he did, it is very hard to determine a true citation record. If they work on major scientific topics of world interest, then one can say the uncovered Indian work is not important, but one can't if they work on regional problems--regional Indian or problems are as important as regional US ones. And almost everything he publishes is technical reports or the like--but he works in technology, not basic science. I have checked, and there is no really good index covering Indian journals in any subject & certainly no citation index. One of the few things Princeton does not have is indexes covering world agriculture--I would have to ask elsewhere--but again, there is no citation index at all in the subject. I checked in Scopus, which covers the third world a little better--but still not well enough--& found one more publication. I can't even check on book holdings well, as there in no union catalog for India. And at this point I dont even know the University.

The author would be the best source of info if he is around, which he does not seem to be--presumably that's why you did not notify him. But to be sure I at least notified him now. The article should have been caught soon after submission, when there was more of a chance. Give him at least a chance to reply, and there are one or two more things to try. I want to see in the GS hits give any clue. And I will ask the agriculture and India workgroups at the least, & see if I can identify from the articles someone here who works on Indian agriculture. The situation is one of the limitations on our ability to work with some subjects and areas, but it doesn't mean the people there are unimportant. One could argue that our standards should compensate, or alternatively that we shouldn't try to cover them. I don;t really have an answer. Why do I spend time on this? it does seem inefficient. But I try to at least make some effort at world wide coverage, and mainly to encourage others. DGG (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I must have forgotten to notify the original author, I always do that, even if they don't seem to be around any more. Sorry about that. I agree that world wide coverage is something to strive for. So for the moment, let's wait and see if something comes up. Unfortunately, CNRS has no access to major agricultural databases, so there's not much I can do either. Thanks for your efforts. --Crusio (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Compustat

Hey DGG, i dont know if you saw my last message regarding the compustat page. are you still planning on removing the spam? Bpossolo (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for reminding me. did so last night. Still needs some citations, and then there are positive things to say that they didnt bother with. wouldn't have bothered if they were not in truth the very major resource they say they are. 18:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

being careful with prods

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

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

Citation counts

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

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

Baumgardner

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

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

Looking for an article

Hello, I am looking for a Wikipedian who could access and send me this academic article. I was suprised to learn that my university doesn't have access to it, and I could very much use it in the series of articles I am currently working on at Wikipedia (Suwalki Agreement, Zeligowski's Mutiny and others). I noticed you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, and I would like to ask if you have access to this article? Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So far your reply is the only one I got. I prefer to ask several people, get the article and than strike out my request instead of asking one person, waiting few days for no reply, and repeating this until I get the article several weeks later :> Yes, it's a bit selfish, but it's not like sending an email attachment is difficult and time consuming, now, is it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking for it! I think I have found a person with access to it now :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

New Pages Proposal

I'm working on a proposal for the Special:Newpages and would enjoy any changes or comments you have about it at User:Mbisanz/Filter Proposal. Mbisanz (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD: Iomanip

I have provided an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iomanip which I would appreciate your considering. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC) commented there. DGG (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Daniel Malakov

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

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

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

Edward (Ted) G. Jones

Hi David, I was about to try to provide you with some amusement by pointing out the speedy deletion nomination of this article, but I see you've been there already! Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

what first got me interested in patrolling speedy was another case where a member of the NAS had been nominated for speedy deletion. I have alerted the perpetrator; about 20% of his speedies are being declined. DGG (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Block of User talk:Ceoil

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

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

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

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

publications, literature, documents, etc.

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

Copyvio Question

Hi, DGG! I asked Alison this, but sie seems to be busy - and it looks like you've addressed the situation, so I want your reasoning.

How does one determine copyright violations? I was looking at E. W. Bullinger, in which there are several sentences that are exactly the same as on [38]. But a) it's certainly not a major part of the article, and b) I don't know which came first - we've had the article since 2003, and the "offending" sentences seem to have been introduced back then: [39].

I see that you re-wrote the sentences - but is that standard? How does one tell which one was written first? At what point does the article need to be deleted? And at what point can the article stay, but copy-vio revisions need to be deleted? I'm very confused about all this... :) Thanks for your help! - I'll watch this page for a response. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

when you come across a few sentences that are not essential to the article, regardless of when they were introduced, there are two choices: either rewrite them on the basis of the source, or remove them. Even if the WP article came first, there isn't much text in WP that cannot be improved somewhat by a careful rewriting, so you are almost certain to improve the article. If it affects the bulk of an article or the notability, there's a third choice if neither seems practical, which is to nominate for deletion. Telling which came first can be an uncertain detective exercise, except when there are clear dates on the source. Rewriting is usually safest. DGG (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hunh. Okay - thanks for the advice - much appreciated!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

PROD Procedure

What's the correct procedure if a user runs across an article that has survived an AfD but now has a prod tag on it. I tagged Konan Big with a prod without realizing it had already survived an AfD. User:Ceyockey copied my prod reasoning to an AfD saying it was a "procedural nomination". If I had even wanted to do an AfD, I would've probably researched it more and written a more coherent (full sentences) nomination. Mbisanz (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If it went to AfD it is contested, and prod is only for articles that are incontestable. The only thing to do with an article that needs deletion that has survived an Afd is another Afd, (short of discovering unsuspected copyvio, which is not the case here) All you need do right now is expand on the deletion rationale at AfD No apology is necessary--this sort of slip-up is rather frequent. DGG (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

BC Comments

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

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

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

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

Always Do Well To Stop A Citizen's Arrest?

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

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

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

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

Golden Gate Handicap

I sent this to the person who added a "speedy delete" to an old article, one you responded to. I thought you might be interested.

"I don't understand. I did not create a new article. The race article has existed for some time. All I did today was go into the existing article's discussion page and add a thoroughbred tag to indicate it was part of the Thoroughbred horse topin on wikipedia, and a California tag to indicate it's a part of what interests Californians. The information on the race page is as much as can be found on many race pages. I spend quite a bit of time time trying to find the winners and winning jockies on some race pages, but when I do, I add them. Or if I find some bit of history pertinant to the race, for example: an very famous racehorse made his or her first start in this race. Other than that, the article is there and added to as things come in. It is not a new article and was never before considered for speedy deletion. I think there is some confusion here about the actual article and its discussion page which has the only two tags I added today."JiggeryPokery (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...and forgive the above idiot errors. I wrote too fast. JiggeryPokery (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today, I went into a number of horse races in order to add a tag on their discussion pages indicating they were part of the Thoroughbred race horse topic here on wikipedia. The article called Golden Gate Fields Handicap existed at that time. It was created quite awhile ago. I clicked on the discussion page to add my Thoroughbred race horse tag and for good measure added the wikiproject California tag. The next thing I know is that Golden Gate Fields Handicap is to be speedily deleted. And now that we've gone round a few times, I've gone back to look and the original article is gone, but the discussion page is there. How odd. But it does explain why it got hit with the speedy deletion tag. It's only a sort of back page without any article. If I did something, then I stand guilty. But I have no idea what I did. JiggeryPokery (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

i will work on it. We will find it. But if you happen to have a local copy, just add it back--its quicker. DGG (talk) 02:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued interest. The article has now completely disappeared. I suppose I could research it again and replace it, but best perhaps to leave things in the hands of those who might find it hiding somewhere, like you. It's possible the whole thing was "speedily" deleted by the person who first tagged it. Meanwhile to appease an irascible editor/contributor? I went through every Thoroughbred horse race in extant at wikipedia and added a tag on their talk pages. None of these, thank blot, disappeared. JiggeryPokery (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Sorry I missed this [40] as I was out of town and off line. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: The Thing to DO

Thanks for your adivice I added the 3rd party review. Any help you can offer is more than appreciated. Looks like we're on the cusp nopw.Gkleinman (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The info that justifies Jane's Guide as a definitive resource is here can you help get that info into the right spot in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkleinman (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Context is everything

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

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

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

adding verification

Hi there

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

== Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex ==

Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:

1. Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export. For the second, go here. (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.) Do whatever Ye want for the third.
2. Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad. Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.” For “Save as type,” select “All Files.” For “File name,” input “export.xml” and save It. Leave the Window open.
3. Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
4. Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear. Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It. Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
5. Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File. At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend! However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet. Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked. Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There. Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex. Paste {{Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}}} at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friend — the Annex Hath Spoken 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

But let this not divert us from what i consider the real work--improving the articles right here and now on wikipedia, defending the defensible ones when they are nominated for deleting, having a say at guideline pages to ensure that the few with a POV do not impose their will on the wider community, and rewording the parts of WP NOT and other policies that are used inappropriate by the zealots. One comprehensive encyclopedia, is what WP is supposed to be, and we should hold to it. And see my note at the top of the page about access to text of already-deleted articles. If everyone who cared about this articles actually worked on one a day, and participated intelligently in a few AfDs even outside their main interest in an even-handed manner, and did not let policy changes take place by default, we can then use the Annex for the truly unimportant but interesting details--the important ones will be where they belong, on wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Schools

I understand. I was just putting the tags back because the IP's edit history makes it clear to me that it was just vandalism, which allows for a speedy tag to be put back in. If someone else had removed it (even another IP), I wouldn't have restored the tag. If you want my opinion, I don't think schools should have any special treatment (technically they can be speedy deleted and some admins do it, but others don't and think they should go to AFD). TJ Spyke 06:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They have sometimes been deleted via Speedy under G11, or of course copyvio. WP:CSD A7 says specifically not to use it for schools, on the empiric basis that they are always controversial. But I have warned the ip. He is contibuting really unconstructive arguments to multiple discussions. DGG (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha

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

See [41]. And once or twice before. Makes my day each time, as the saying goes. DGG (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Need a hand, please

Hello again, DGG ... the editor SeanMorleyRoxs (talk · contribs) has a history of creating articles about NN actors and fictional characters that have been deleted by PRODs and AfDs ... based on their poor grammar and punctuation (like this recent creation), I suspect that they are a teenager ... while their enthusiasm to contribute is commendable, the quality and usefulness of their contributions is questionable ... could you please caution them to back off, as other editors have already attempted? Thanks! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 17:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Only one of the other eds. has tried a personal message instead of formal templates. I'll try to say something that might help. DGG (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thnx (I thought that more than one other had left constructive comments, but I may be confusing this editor with another one) ... for a while, their contributions were a therapeutic diversion for my OCD, but now they're just a PITA. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 03:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Vincent Gray

You voted to delete in this AfD based on lack of evidence that he's notable. I've since provided 7 articles from 7 different reliable sources in which he's non-trivially interviewed/featured/mentioned as a climate skeptic (two in the article, five more in the AfD). I ask therefore that you return to the AfD and reconsider your position based on the evidence presented. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC) responded. there DGG (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue IV (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Noetic Sage 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:About speedy

I'm sorry. Did I mark something that didn't meet the criteria? I thought I only marked empty articles or ones that were patent gibberish. If so, I didn't mean to offend - just trying to help. Portia1780 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance and encouragement. I'll try not to get too carried away with the speedy deletions --- I'm usually more of a "uncategorized" person - less damage to be done over there. Portia1780 (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability question

I've noticed a somewhat disconnect in the way we deal with Band notability v. other notability. For instnace, a non-notable album of a quasi-notable band like Slap in the Face is probably going to be saved with sales of say 1,000-10,000 copies. On the other hand a CFO of a Fortune 50 is probably going to be deleted (same for an adjunct prof whose taught 5,000 students). Seems like the levels are amiss somewhere. MBisanz 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. WP is full of inconsistencies. The more you explore, the more you will find, and attempts to revise policy pages create more every hour. The practical rule is "what we thing is notable is notable" Nothing contradictory about that one--except for the definition of 'we'. If you care to interpret it as you and i and a few like-minded friends, it'll go rather well, and we'll have the WP we deserve. The Encyclopedie put in what Diderot and d'Alembert wanted & thought they could get away with. They had a consistent principle.

But examples are deceptive. someone teaching English to 5000 people is actually not very important in the world, as all but a few students will forget him immediately. CFO's are important to themselves, and their companies, but how we tell which are important except for the size of the company and the size of the salary I can figure out myself. the ones who get newspaper articles are not necessary the one who are important. A band with 5000 records sold--how is it different from one with 50,000? their fans will think them important, and nobody else. a classical or experimental musician who distributes 500 free copies can be more important in every meaningful sense than either of them. But every single character in Tolstoy, every individual verse in the Bible, every single command in Unix, every compound of Argon --to take a few things things that have been challenged recently--is more important than any of them.

Encyclopedic notability should be defined as importance. That is isn't, is just a fudge to avoid writing articles about what people here aren't interested in. What they prefer not to write about, they call non-notable. If we removed the concept of notability--pr, what is much the same thing, defined it as having 2 reliable sources, then they'd start qualifying what counts as reliable source to achieve the same result.

You may notice i do not touch band and pop musician articles up at CSD. As far as I am concerned, asserting one has recorded a record and distributed it is an assertion of notability. As that isn't the practice, & I don't know enough to argue the matter, I avoid participation. None of these people mean a thing to me, and I cannot reliably tell any intrinsic difference between the ones that are considered meaningful and the others. For that matter, almost no television episode means anything to me either, and everything I learn about them in WP convinces me how right I am about it--but I can tell a lynch mob when I see one & I've learned the advisability of resisting mobbing in general, regardless of their victim. I would never watch hard-core porn except under threat of lethal violence, and the same about wrestling. Let those who do, go their own way here, as long as they tolerate my Austen characters, my medieval bishops, and my 19th century German professors. Again, all examples that are challenged. DGG (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem of what to include and exclude is not resolved by presenting synonyms. "Encyclopedic" or its opposite are, of course, circular, generally meaning "I think this belongs on Wikipedia," or not. To the extent that standards are clear, it can mean "Meets inclusion criteria," or does not, but, then, it would be a better explanation of, say, an AfD vote to state the *specific* criterion involved. Without that, it's nothing more than a raw vote, "Keep" or "Delete" says it all. The fundamental problem is that "notable" is about people, not topics, and what is notable shifts from time to time. Today's useless trivia *could* be tomorrow's clue to a major mystery. "Important" adds nothing to this, in fact. DGG has it right that it is about the community, but this, then, makes it impossible to set clear standards so that editors, creating an article, can know what will be acceptable or not. I'm claiming that the problem will not go away, it will get worse, until we realize that the task of an encyclopedia is to categorize and qualify knowledge, to arrange it in an access hierarchy, not to include or exclude any *noticed* knowledge from "all human knowledge." If someone thinks that a thing should be in an encyclopedia, enough to write an article on it, at least a stub, it's notable to that person, and we have, in fact, proof (with AGF). But that does not mean that it should be anywhere other than, perhaps, at the bottom of a hierarchy of knowledge, for the hierarchy is properly based on *shared* knowledge and opinion as to notability. As I've been considering all this over the past few weeks, it's becoming increasingly clear to me. Remember, DGG, one of my major concerns is efficiency. The deletionist agenda is extraordinarily inefficient. Classification schemes could *build* structures that would be relatively invulnerable to vandalism and isolated POV manipulation. Deletionism simply shovels out the alleged garbage that keeps pouring in, which may look simple today, until one realizes that, as Wikipedia grows, so will the garbage, indeed, it may grow exponentially. And so will the millions who are offended when what they think is important is tossed by the community, or, worse, by whomever was active in that particular AfD, who perhaps thinks that what is important to the article authors and their community is not important, period. Given the existing system, DGG's forbearance in fields not known to him is quite correct. If we all did that, we'd have a better encyclopedia and better relations with users. --Abd (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please patrol new pages a little, Abd,before you tell me that "If someone thinks that a thing should be in an encyclopedia, enough to write an article on it, at least a stub, it's notable to that person, and we have, in fact, proof (with AGF)." It will be like the 1:1 scale maps in Borges and Swift. What you are proposing is a federated social networking site. We don't need to do it here, there are sufficient other projects. Why is this different? It's because it's a selection on rational principles. The first screening principle is what is likely to provide information of some social or general value. The second is the sort of information that is descriptive, and objective, and verifiable. You are proposing we take the second without the first. Northing wrong with that. We could also select only the first--anything likely to be important, without caring if its true or objective. There are such sites also. Northing wrong with that, either, if they avoid libel. But there is also a purpose in a source of information that filters by both of them--if you want to join such a project, here it is. There are other projects Some of us work on one or more of them as well as Wikipedia, sometimes with more effort than here, and there is nothing wrong with that either. Someone may edit a little here, and also write poetic appreciations of their friends, elsewhere. In the other direction, there are sites aimed at a more narrow filtering,of the information appropriate for students, or scholars. Excellent projects also, and again some of us work on one or more of them as well as Wikipedia. Someone may edit a little here, and also write attributed more scholarly articles elsewhere, and perhaps also write fan fiction.

I oversimplify a little--what you are actually proposing is a universal networking site, with a layer of an encyclopedia added. But people will surely combine the two--the internet is ideal for doing that. The social networking part is already highly developed, and those who love them will develop them further. We are here to work on the other half, and let whoever will combine them. We do not do it here because in practice there is an intrinsic tension between uncontrolled material, and material with a basis of objectivity. I don't think we can compromise between them, or have a viable hybrid: objectivity requires selection. But that's a more subtle topic, and somehow not quite suitable for New Years Eve. Or the Day After. DGG (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that DGG seems to be missing that I'm not making a very specific proposal, I am primarily analyzing the existing situation and where trends and principles will take it, unless there is some kind of course correction. I'm *not* proposing a social networking site. And while a literal reading of what I wrote could lead to the conclusion that I was proposing a totally inclusionist position, (i.e., we could presume notability because of the work that the individual put into the article), I did, in fact, add a qualification to that: a presumption of good faith. And what we see in new pages is a lot of stuff that, right on the face, negates that presumption. If I write an article about what my cat had for breakfast, there are several possibilities. (1) I'm pulling your chain, (2) I'm crazy, (3) there is something about it that I think notable, and I'm probably crazy as well, but *maybe* not, but I certainly could not blame anyone if it gets deleted if some special reason it should be notable is not developed. What I'm really writing about is articles that properly require AfD to delete. There is also a problem with WP:PROD because of participation bias, in this case the quite common occurrence that nobody in a position to know the notability of an article notices the PROD tag before the article is deleted. The problem with this, though, is, in my view, only with the obscurity of what has happened to inexperienced editors, the article, to them, simply disappears, and how would they know what happened? With AfD, they can find the deletion discussion....

The system that I proposed, simply as one example of how dealing with the notability problem, not as necessarily the best solution, was that *two* editors considering an article notable, one of them being a trusted editor according to some developed standards, call this a notability administrator, no special tools needed, would be sufficient; notability admins would be expected to know guidelines and to *reasonably* follow them. (The reason to require a notability admin approval of an article is to avoid sock puppet (simple sock or meat puppet) validation of notability.

Now, this is what I think is the real consideration: There is no system resource reason to delete over, say, moving articles to a special non-notable space. The storage requirements are the same, and, in fact, the admin resources required are less, since everyone could access "deleted" articles, instead of only administrators. However, I'd assume that the *fear* is that, then, editors would use Wikipedia as the "social networking site" that DGG mentions. So, to prevent this, we *punish* it by deleting the articles. That'll teach them. However, problem is, this also catches articles created by sincere users who think the topic is notable, and there can even be hundreds of users who would agree, I've seen AfDs that, quite simply, neglected real communities who simply were not enjoying publication *in English*. My opinion, however, regardless of the difficulty, is that we need notability *procedures* that do not require making continual judgements, case by case, in a way that is practically guaranteed to alienate both individual users and communities of users. I also proposed a *different* solution, which is to port AfD'd articles to another site that welcomes *all* documents, such as wikia. The link to the document would then be placed in a list maintained on Wikipedia of deleted articles. But I don't think that is the most efficient solution. DGG, what I'm suggesting is that if Wikipedia does not directly address efficiency, it is going to fail as the scale increases. The existing solution will not scale much higher, and, I'd argue, it's already failing.

What I really propose is that we begin studying how to solve the problem without offending a community every time we make a move, and what I've done is to note a number of considerations that I consider important. Perhaps the most important of these is to note that the function of an encyclopedia is to categorize and present knowledge efficiently from the point of view of the reader; this requires that the most notable information be the most prominent, but it does not, in itself, require any deletion at all, only hierarchy. Ideally, an encyclopedia, if it is practical, should be *totally* inclusive, but my cat's dinner might require proceeding down through lots of layers designed to protect readers from detail that is almost certainly useless and, in fact, that detail does not have to be on Wikipedia, rather, it might involve additional processes, like feeding queries to an external search engine. If I'm reading an article that is at the terminal limit of Wikipedia notability, i.e., it actually has an article here, and I want further detail, it should be very easy to find it *from the article*. A current AfD is the Astronomy club at the University of the Philippines. One of the suggestions is that the information in the article be moved to a list of organizations on that campus. However, there is content on this particular club and its history that would probably be out of place on that list. Someone compiled that information (I think several editors, actually), and I did not find, yet, any other place on the web where it's all in one place (there are some dead links, as one problem). It may be reasonable to delete the article, but it strikes me as a bit rude. Some of what is described is almost certain to have seen local press reports in a very large community, just not in English. The existence of some solution less drastic than eradication from public view here seems better to me. What's wrong, I ask, with having information that would, indeed, be considered notable by hundreds of people, maybe even thousands, and verifiable in various ways, in a lower layer? It might not appear in top-level lists of articles, nor would many current articles if we had such a hierarchy in place. There already is significant categorization on Wikipedia through categories, but, I'm suggesting, the hierarchies need more development.

The problem with the notability criterion is that it is essentially arbitrary. Clearly there is lots of stuff that is easily categorized as not-notable. And there is, at the other end, lots of stuff that is clearly notable. It's the middle that's the killer. Requiring complex process taking constant administrator attention to make notability decisions is highly inefficient; that is the bottom-line problem with it. And that process tends to become heated, to foment dissension. It's inherent: what is notable to one group is not notable to another. I'd suggest that, instead, notability decisions must be made through a much more automatic process, and be much less oppositional and contentious in nature. The notability admin class of editors is one approach. Social networking sites use editor votes to create rankings. Whatever it is, though, it must work efficiently, not waste resources, minimize the effort that it takes to maintain and to improve the encyclopedia. I have seen AfD used to remove articles that anyone in the field -- election methods -- recognizes as notable, they were about familiar concepts, widely considered, among experts, important, and the major problem was that nobody noticed the AfDs, and there was an activist who seems to have realized this, who created a sock puppet to do it, and who successfully killed a whole series of articles on topics important in public debate over election methods, until someone finally watchlisted his contribs. It's a broken system, wide open to abuse, and, I'm sure, what happened in the field I'm familiar with, has happened elsewhere.

Using article deletion to maintain notability requires administrators with the tools to handle it. A "move" solution would not require admin tools, thus the work can be shifted to a wider community. Notability decisions (what belongs in mainspace) then become ordinary content decisions, handled through similar process: policies, guidelines, discussion, editor consensus (which confines the decision to an interested community), RFC, and what should be more rare, mediation and arbitration. I'm suggesting that the notability decision is a crucial part of the creation of an information hierarchy, that is, of the very project itself, and deletion -- which made no sense at the outset of this project since all editors could see all deleted material unless it was truly system-deleted, reserved for legally problematic material -- builds nothing, while categorization of knowledge builds the necessary access hierarchy. --Abd (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point in the development of free resources we are not ready for an integrated system for the hierarchical organisation of knowledge. I think we have all we can handle in 2008 with this one particular project, a comprehensive free online user-contributed content open-edited encyclopedia. To have succeeded to this extent is truly revolutionary, and the revolutionary developments to come would be better as separate systems, possibly integrating Wikipedia. I'm not sure that this one will scale much further. I can see an add-on for material not really suitable to an encyclopedia--I think of it as Wikia--since the requirements are different, it does not need the protection of freedom from advertising. There's another way also: if you want a Wikipedia+, there is nothing preventing you from starting one. You can simply take a feed but not remove deleted articles except for copyright and libel. Its legit,as long as you do not call it Wikipedia. Then your experiment can proceed as well.

Like it or not, having a WP articles has become significant to people: we have not intended that it is a certification of importance in the world, but it is taken to be so; we are not an auxiliary to Google, but having a WP article with one's name or organisation in the title greatly inflates page rank; while our material is not guaranteed as reliable, news organisations use it as if it were. Though a second level of material need not intrinsically compromise on this, in practice it will. In terms of our own standards, it will also inevitably compromise NPOV and objectivity and FRINGE. We must not become Wikinfo or Knol. At the beginning we were writing to some extent only for our own editors--we are now writing for the public.

The way to cope with the increasing workload and attain a higher standard of reproducible objectivity is to have more bright-line clear-cut distinctions, rather than rely on the subjective interpretation of "notability", or judging inclusion only by the existence of a limited range of sources. DGG (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I def did not see my 80 word question turning into a 2800 word philosophical discussion. In any case, as a user who frequently patrols NewPages and PRODs many of them, there are many many people who follow behind me and have no issue pulling or prod2-ing something I've done. I think we do need to find a way to merge more of the many many small stubs, that on their own, provide almost no information. Also, I wonder if some of our best work, our FAs and GAs would ever qualify for publicantion in field literature, magazines, journals, etc. That would be a great way to raise the perception of our work and bring in more people who can contribute scholarly sources and prose. MBisanz ^talk 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You just stumbled into an ongoing conversation. What I've realized out of all this is that stubs can be merged by anyone, articles can be *effectively* -- and harmlessly -- deleted by anyone, at least in many cases. What I've seen in a current AfD is a situation where the nominator could *more* easily have redirected the articles to a list that already existed. Simpler than AfD, doesn't waste the time of any other editor, and maybe its done at that point, unless someone objects. Notability effectively becomes an *editorial* issue, not an administrative one. If WP:Articles for deletion recommended merge/redirect more strongly before resorting to the highly inefficient process of AfD, then AfDs could be speedy closed without prejudice when editorial processes were not tried. If nobody objects, it's done. If someone objects, editorially, then notability standards can be discussed among those specifically interested (the "redirector" and the one who wants the article back), and only if they cannot reach agreement need more editors get involved. AfD, then, becomes a bit like an RFC on article "disappearance." I see this approach or something like it being essential for dealing with the increasing scale. If AfDs were precedent-setting, the work going into them might be worth it, but they are not. Every AfD is unique, and no precedent is actually set. That's *phenomenally* inefficient. Right now, my first concern is conserving admin labor, AfDs waste it. But in the long run, Wikipedia must become more efficient for all editors; it's a little like a Ponzi scheme (editors start, get enthusiastic, contribute way too much, burn out, being replaced by new generations of new editors; attrition among admins seems pretty high to me.). It works until one reaches market saturation. Maintaining articles is *way* too much work when there is controversy involved. Maintaining notability standards is going to get worse and worse, or, alternatively, the public is going to become increasingly averse to spending time creating articles that disappear and the work is lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 02:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course merges are preferable to deletion. and in many cases they would seem the ideal way to go -- but

First, since anyone may edit the merged material, frequently the substance of the article quickly disappears altogether. In a contested AfD, often the real question is whether the material itself is encyclopedic at all. When we merge an article of a school into a list of schools in a district, it may result either in a good short paragraph in an article, or a mere listing of the name of the school. Sometimes even the stated intent of those intending to merge is to lose the material. Sometimes, even, as a deliberate strategy, first material will be deleted from an article and moved to a separate article, then that article nominated for deletion. Such merges are really a form of delete, and we ought to find a way to distinguish. ("Redirect" is even worse, it always amounts to delete, not keep.) What we need to prevent this is a better policy on content, and one that is enforceable by a true community decision, not the vague article dispute resolution RfAs and mediations that are often either inconclusive or undone soon after. People are still insisting every item of content and every link has to meet WP:N. It has to be realized that many who want to delete material--and many who want to unreasonably keep material--will use whatever maneuvers are available. As processes go here, there's much worse than AfD.

Second, a redirect does not get crawled by Google. The effect of a name being an article title in Google is extremely significant in its page rank and thus visibility. The word in a merged article text or heading will still be indexed, of course, but it puts the WP page on the material much further down the list, not one of the top entries. We're not a subsidiary of Google, but what we do does have an effect in the world outside Wikipedia.

The more articles we can decide on outside AfD, the fewer AfDs, and we can concentrate on the truly disputable ones, and attract the necessary wide participation. Many of the articles that come there are really fairly obvious, and could be handled by compromise. People will always insist on appealing decisions there, but if we have clear rules it will make those decisions go very quickly. For the actually contestable half of articles at AfD, does anyone thing AfD decides right more than 80% of the time? If we had rough groups of acceptable/unacceptable, & we could get 90% accuracy, we'd be doing much better. Inconsistent decisions are a sign of an immature system. But remember that if we do have precedent, individual questions will become more important and we will see more items appealed to Deletion Review.i think that's as it should be, provided we can get the necessary really wide participation. And if we go by rules, we will need some agreement on what constitutes sufficient consensus for guidelines & policy, and on how to ensure that small groups don't try to set things they way they, but not the wider community, will like them. All I can do for today. DGG (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, DGG. Notability decisions are editorial decisions. We don't involve the community in editorial decisions unless editors are unable to come to agreement. That's *relatively* efficient. Having the community deliberate on the notability of each article is essentially insane, wider community involvement should be reserved for places where it's important to establish precedent (that is a worthy application of community time) and to resolve conflicts. Quite correctly, Wikipedia has a hierarchy of conflict resolution, starting with minimal community effort -- essentially, only the involved editors.- --Abd (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's not quite the way it works, nor the way it should work either.. Article content is for editors, with dispute resolution by the community when they can't agree. Acceptability of articles for considerations of notability or otherwise is for the community. such questions are properly raised on the article talk page first in many cases, in the hope that the editors can improve the content enough to satisfy those who may question the article. Sometimes they choose to resolve it via a merge, often a good compromise. If they can agree on that, it's an editing decision. If not, it goes to the community, via Afd and deletion review. I can't see giving any group of editors a decisive voice in whether their content gets kept or not, no matter how many might agree. DGG (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I can't explain away my behavour the last night except that I lost my temper, plain and simple. I had someting to say; I said it once, twice, trice, and then unfortunatly, a few times more. You got caught in the crossfire, unfairly, and then I acted ugly, and I'm sorry. For what its worth I thought you were one of the stand up admins in earlier discussions, and my openion hasn't changed. I think its a pity I acted like I did. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. I'm glad to see you also apologized at ArbCom. There was a good deal of impatience at all sorts of things expressed all over WP yesterday & today. Must have some relation to the time of year. :) DGG (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes but no but, there was a 2nd reason. ...and war. Sorry again. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Warn-article

Hello again, DGG ... I copied your comments about this template from an article talk page, and have cut it down to one-third the previous length ... is it less "elitist" (my term) now? Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 04:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've tweaked the template since the Big Purge, as well as putting some more velvet on Template:Warn-editor (edit | [[Talk:Template:Warn-editor|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... comments? —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is still too verbose--the shorter, the more likely to be actually read, rather than reacted to. I'll make some suggestions there. DGG (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Copy that ... I think that I may have addressed some of the reasons for its verbosity at this tread, the biggest being the assumption that it is intended for newbies who just don't know any better yet ... I'm thinking of moving some of my assumptions to Deletion warnings ... take care of your ohana, Good Buddy (Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again ... Please see this addition of a section to my Deletion warnings essay for Why the templates are so verbose ... there's also a discussion on Template talk:Warn-article that indicates to me that my presentation is still Too Complicated for some editors ... any suggestions? Maybe if I trimmed it back to just the first Four Steps, like on User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome, along with an instance of {{Warn-templates}}, and put the other steps on a subpage, so as not to overwhelm the first-time reader? —72.75.72.63 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A recommended hello; I'd be happy to use email but didn't see your address

In the middle of chaos about CIA articles, MBisanz suggested, "Thats a good background to have, your someone this project needs, (ie someone with professional experience). Incidentally, you might want to drop User:DGG a line as I believe he's a librarian/library prof., who I suspect is near your age. "

I wanted to introduce myself, having worked on the information systems side at the Library of Congress, and being on-and-off with NLM, ULMS, and medical publishing. When you have time given real-world issues, I am open to any advice on the CIA flap. Honestly, I've not been trying to whitewash anything, and indeed have put in some pretty uncomplimentary declassified documents. I have been trying to make the distinction between things ordered from various Presidencies, and those things done by a rogue agency. Henry Kissinger once told Zhou Enlai that people that think the CIA did certain things vastly overestimate their competence; I'd love to tell the anecdote of the fiasco involved in getting the air conditioning working in their headquarters.

If you like, you can get a working email for me from a project webpage, http://www.beachwerks.com.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

just the the Email this user link at the left--it works from your page too, since you activated it in your preferences, as I am about to demonstrate to you.) Personally, a problem with the series of articles mentioned, is that the amount of background in each section is too great and non-specific, as it would be in a CIA briefing, which has to explain what e.g. WMDs are in the introduction. ; it might be clearer if the source were at least indicated in each section rather than just the footnote, e.g. "in its 2001 briefing on X, the CIA reported that ..." Remember that some reports may be separately notable and worth an individual article. Personally also, though I believe HK could distinguish true from false, his recorded statements give little indication of it. A bungled interference is none the less an interference. The CIA, for example, did try to destabilize Albania, though we now know why nothing came of it. DGG (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Serials, periodicals, journals etc

In case you hadn't noticed (since I see you haven't commented, & I know you think about this sort of stuff!) I've just spotted a move discussion of Category:Serials, periodicals and journals at Thought you should know about it if you didn't. Best, Dsp13 (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

There's thread discussion "In popular culture" sections in articles there. Interested to take a look? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

discussion? (low priority)

I see there were some changes to the schlessinger page. Could the sexual harassment section be changed to simply "harassment" as a SUBSECTION of personal life? Also, I would like to propose a heading change to "Yeda/Aventis/Imclone Patent Controversy and Trial" the current title doesn't give any indication as to what the section is about. ThanksTruther truther (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have also been thinking about the possibility of a change in headers--there is only one problem--the subsection level headers appear very prominent in most browsers--it's a weird limitation of our html formatting that they look more prominent than the first level. Let me look at changing the wording instead, to emphasise the separation. I agree we need something there.

The heading for Yeda/Aventis/Imclone matches the one above for his company. Let me try some wording. Yeda/Aventis/Imclone Patent perhaps? DGG (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The patent trial has to be lasted as what it is. It was a patent trial. PS: I undid some changes to the sex harassment wording on the schles site that letsnotlie/hillhealth/kiki1945/Joseph schlessinger changed AGAIN... I also added a subheading of "harassment lawsuit" Do subheadings appear prominently in browsers? he is constantly trying to distill down the established wording...yesterday...again todayTruther truther (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Truther truther (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, 3rd level subheadings appear in bold on browsers. 2nd level are the main one in articles. We do not use first level. Repeating names in the same paragraph is not encourage. he (or she) usually does it. Some of the changes made by the other editor seem good improvements in wording to me. I am returning to most of them. I very strongly suggest you do not further edit the actual article. Propose changes on the talk page. DGG (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

why did we change "Yeda/Aventis/Imclone Patent Trial" It was a trial. The paragraph only talks about the trial. why can't we label it for what it is? Truther truther (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Change of focus

Well, DGG ... I've had another epiphany, and Template talk:Warn-article#Change of focus shows the change in focus for the templates, from Warning to Notice ... they're no longer a "threat to delete" but a "caution about notability" ... I've changed their icons and the default headers generated ... now they should be "kinder" as well as "leaner" ... examples of the current versions follow the discussion ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 08:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SCL

For the past six months, I have been working on some four-step Protocols for deletion warnings like Warn-inc ... I'm contacting you today because I have Burnaby North Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on my watchlist, and noticed a recent contribution on the discussion page (which pinged me about this forgotten article) ... I am not considering the article for possible deletion, but I watchlisted it several months ago in order to identify Some Other Editor who had both (a) an interest in Wikipedia:Notability (schools) and (b) more knowledge about the subject than myself.

I was wondering if you think that there might be some utility to adding a Warn-school protocol cloned from Warn-academic (see Warn-templates for what I'm talking about) ... WP:SCL not a A7 speedy delete candidate, but neither is WP:PROF or WP:FICTION ... still, this could be handy for a {{Db-reason}}, a {{Prod}}, or an AfD of a non-notable school, just like with "Academics" and "Fiction" ... I could easily add "School" as one of the notability guidelines recognized by the {{Warn-article}} and {{Warn-editor}} templates to generate the WP:SCL shortcut.

Please respond on this talk page, since there is no place else to discuss it ... I guess my question boils down to, "If I made it, would you use it?"

BTW, I had created one for WP:PORNBIO, but deleted it and removed the selection from the templates when it was deprecated a few months ago ... I have delayed creating one for WP:SCL because it is still a proposal under creation. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If I like it, I will use it. But it's going to be tricky, for there is no agreement, and the result at AfD varies from week to week, depending on who pays attention. We've come very near agreement that High schools are essentially always notable, and others should usually be merged, but we've never been able to get there. For lower schools, i think perhaps a tag suggesting how to merge;there is already Template:merge-school, about which I've made a few comments. For high schools, almost nothing will prevent an article going to afd, for some people dont think them usually notable and some will always defend them. (My personal view is that we just might as well consider them notable to avoid the discussions, since 80 or 90% actually will be--but not everyone agrees) What's needed is a checklist for what makes them notable: news events, historic buildings, academic or athletic awards, notable alumni.

but about these pages in general I have a major concern--if you list db-reason you should give the likely reasons: copyvio usually, sometimes empty, sometimes vandalism. fictional characters may not be deleted via speedy for non-notability --see WP:CSD A7 -- only real people so warn-fiction needs to be rewritten to say so. The proper course is usually Prod or merge.

I'd really be happier waiting for a week or two--see below. DGG (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

List of 100 greatest hockey players by The Hockey News

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

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

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

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

Right to Resist

Molecular biology ---> library

Hi DGG,

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

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

Consensus at WP:FICT

Hi David. I noticed your comment at the talk page of WP:FICT: "what consensus means: consensus is something that everyone can live with, though they may not altogether agree with it." - I agree with that, but I can't quite see what it had to do with my comment that you seemed to be replying to. Was that a misplaced comment, or did you have other things to say as well? Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was discussing generally the possibility of having --or not having --consensus for either FICT or NOT#PLOT. I dont think there is any version of FICT that everyone is willing to live with; With NOT PLOT (and perhaps NOT NEWS, and possibly NOT INDISCRIMINATE, there may be not really consensus for the present wording. (Not that I would propose deleting them, just editing them to a more flexible version.)DGG (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

NYMagazine

Yes, I agree that it may not be the best source for notability, but I think it's enough to make deletion doubtful enough to avoid a prod and to use AfD instead.

I'm not sure which article you are actually referring to here, because I was reviewing proposed deletions today and came across what seemed to be a mass nomination from one editor of a series of about 10-15 articles on surgeons and researchers at the Columbia University Medical Center, all with the reason "Advertisement, Self-promotion, Spam, Non Notable", and most of whom appeared to be notable either according to sources in the article or with trivial web searching. I admit that by the time I was getting to the end of these I was just choosing the simplest explanation I could find for removing the prod tag simply to save effort. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those are the articles--I've been looking at them, and left a note for the author, who is apparently the pr guy for the dept of Surgery at Columbia. Some of the people are clearly notable,& I've removed a few others based on awards etc.--But I certainly dont blame whoever tagged them all. But looking ahead to the AfDs that are almost certain to follow, I wonder how many people receive that NYMagazine designation--one of the article referred to their list of the top 100 bariatric surgeons (if that's nationwide, it's possible, if its just in NYC, that's another matter).DGG (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So far one of the articles from which I removed the prod tag, has come up for AfD, and that was quickly withdrawn by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

James Patrick Dunne

Hi. Thanks for the point about IMDB. I'm still a bit suspicious because the text on there matches what is on the agnet's website, suggesting it was written by them. I'm not sure whether they have control over the credits list though. I just think it's suspicious that no other websites seem to mention him. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've found one CD of his on Amazon. I think what I might do is take out all of the unverifiable information out of the article and leave it as a stub. What do you think? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This isnt my usual subject, but I looked on the web & I found much less definite information than I would have expected, & am therefore, just like you, a little skeptical. Yes, IMdB lets people say what they like, but corrects errors when reported to them, so it is acceptable for routine matters, but it can be challenged if it seems doubtful, & in this case I too would like to see something additional. Either just remove what you cant immediately verify, or find a suitable expert WikiProject to review it, or bring it to AfD, where many people will see it. DGG (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've listed it at AfD (this is what I had intended to do in the first place but got confused between deletion procedures). Let's see what people say. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [42]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New MfD

I know you're not the type to do something like this but can we get someone to close this new MfD? See my comment there. I don't think this should even be allowed to get off the ground. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:16, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention there. I obviously think that was a good call. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:34, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

not that we've likely heard the last of this--as if we didn't have enough actual problems to work on. DGG (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your upcoming presentation to fellow librarians

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

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

not correct

My position is that the opposition shown on WT:EPISODE does not represent the WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia, only that of certain editors of TV-related articles. I believe I have said this in my statement. I see you disagree with me.

I'm replying here because I consider a discussion beneath my statement in WT:EPISODE to be disruptive. Do you think it helps to start a tangential discussion in exactly that spot? I appreciate it if you would move your comment elsewhere. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is really not a good idea to start reinjecting previous discussion into the RFC. This is disruptive. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you made a factually incorrect statement, and i thought appropriate to correct it. I will move it, though, to a statement of my own. You are right that it would be better as that. I apologize for not doing that at first DGG (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much. This is very helpful! By the way, dial-up users will find it hard to load your Talk page repeatedly for a discussion like this one. It might be a good idea to archive more frequently. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Hispanics

DDG, I left a message on the talk page, but it appears you're not watching it. I asked why you removed the "See also" section, and why that question someone asked as a reference, instead of in the talk page, should be restored, especially since I already answered it. You gave no reasons for either change, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

just a slip of the mouse. I fixed it. Sorry for not responding sooner, but I have about 900 articles on my watchlist. DGG (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your work at Bert W. O'Malley!!!!!! CM (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Prod2 tags

RE: the prod2 you put on this article: while the {{prod}} tag is substituted, the {{prod2}} tag isn't. Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either. Anyways, I fixed it, just giving you a heads-up. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Amateur computer club invite

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

Theistic rationalism

I made some comments you should see. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theistic rationalism ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC) -- (commented further there) - DGG

RE:Peter Clift

Hello DGG. Thank you for your note on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

American Journal Experts

In keeping with your suggestion that sources be added to the article rather than only be mentioned, I have now cited actual sources and provided links in the article. Hopefully this is what you had in mind. Perhaps now you will vote to keep the article so that the sources can continue to develop. I also put an example of spam on the talk page.BlueDevil1 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation question

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

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

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

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

Natasha Collins again

Hello DGG. The Natasha Collins article was recreated via DRV but is for deletion again. Since I noticed your incredibly strongpoints at the first AFD and at the DRV, may I suggest that you make a comment there? Besides John254 or whatever who doesn't seem to be commenting anymore on the page I am basically leading a one man opposition. Your help would be sincerely welcomed. Yours truly the Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

John seems to have showed up, as would be expected, as have others. And additional people will. I did too, though I consider this not one of the strongest possible keeps. But you have come very close to canvassing: you should have said merely "The article on NC is up for deletion, the previous deletion having been overturned at DRV. As you commented in the first AfD or the Del Rev, or both, you may be interested in having a look." and sent it to every person who made a substantial comment in either. Do the others now, if you havent already. Fair's fair. DGG (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD Again (You voted before)

• The article formerly known as VP:Admin Abuse is back up for a MfD, in spite of its new title and greatly expanded sections highlighting great admins. (The MfD is believed to be a veiled personal attack.) The new page is WP:What Were They Thinking? (or simply WP:WWTT). The deletion question is here. Please visit and voice your support or, if your opinion has changed, opposition to this article. As you'll recall, it was a UNANIMOUS KEEP the first time around. Thank you for your time. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a keep when it was in user space. I do not think it can be defended in WP space. It contains personal opinions about specific actions. I strongly advise you to accept moving it, and then I will support keeping it. DGG (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:A7

Hmm... I changed it to a PROD.   jj137 ^♠ 02:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The PROD tag will probably expire in five days, but you're right, it's a better choice than A7.   jj137 ^♠ 02:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Thank you for your support regarding the AfDs related to the Franco-Mongol alliance. A few editors are actually putting a lot of efforts into deleting a lot of the referenced material from the Franco-Mongol alliance page (all from reputable and published sources) in favour of a highly restrictive and dismissive point of view. Your help is appreciated. Best regards. PHG (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a short main article and long specialized ones might be the way to go. But see my comments at the AfDs. DGG (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

question

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

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

My sig

I'm sorry, how does my signature sound out? or do you just have something against Librarians? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Centre for Fortean Zoology article as spam

Hello David, I recently nominated the article Centre for Fortean Zoology for deletion as spam, but you removed the nomination, citing that you did not believe the article fit the category. I would like to note that the article was written by the directors of the organization, cites only organization and director publications as sources, contains links to the organization's website added by a director, and contains several self-aggrandizing passages such as, "...is the only professional, scientific and full-time organisation...", "...is now a truly global entity...", "...has carried out an unparalleled programme of research and investigation all over the world...", "...is the largest single publisher of books on cryptozoology in the world...", "...film includes a very funny guest appearance...", "The CFZ has an impressive range of publications to their credit...", etc. This reeks of advertisement. If you would not call this spam, I would still argue that the article was created by the organization for the sole purpose of drawing business to itself, and the manner in which the article is written has no place in Wikipedia articles. What is your basis for claiming that this article doesn't qualify for db-spam? Schlegel (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I think its fixable. Thanks for reminding me--I usually fix it immediately after removing a G11, so I went back and did it just now. I removed those adjectives, and the list of the leadership. If you still think its hopeless, try AfD, I am far from infallible. DGG (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:

{{Timefact}} displays ^{{chronology source needed}} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information

At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.

Daoken 10:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You were right...

You were right, DGG, I should not have sent those articles to AfD at the same time, but should have done it one at a time instead. We may each disagree on the individual notability on the subjects of the articles themselves - but you were kind enough to come to my talk page and politely give me this advice which I did not follow, and I apologize. I respect you and thank you for assuming good faith with me, and being so polite in the manner in which you gave me the head's up. I'm sorry and I will listen to your advice more closely next time. I also won't do this sort of mass nominating AfDs again. Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your coming here with this comment. Good start of the week. DGG (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Communes

No, That's all I will add. I'm creating the outline of the pages so that future editors can fill them in a lot easier without having to create them, as I did with the German Municipalities which are currently still being added upon and improved. A lot can be built on from a stub. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)