User talk:DGG

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

Reminders:Reminders
Topical Archives: Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , IPC & Fiction, WP:Academic things & people, Journals
Sourcing, BLP
General Archives: Sept-Dec06, Jan-Feb07, Mar-Apr07, May07, Jun07, Jul 7, Aug07, Sep07, Oct 07; Nov 07, Dec07, Jan08, Feb08, Mar08, Apr08, May08, Jun08, Jul08, Aug08, Sep08, Oct08, Nov08, Dec08, Jan09, Feb09, Mar09,
Apr09, May09, jun09, Jul09, Aug09, Sep09

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

---

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

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

---

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)

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

Ha

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

See [2]. 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)

Well said

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

Regarding [3], well said. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:DGG/LG

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

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

magazines...and speedy

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

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

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

Noticeboards, noticeboards, noticeboards!

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

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

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

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

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

Namecheck

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

Wikipedia:Deletion reform study group

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

You are famous

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

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

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

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

Congratulations

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

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

Fame

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

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

Re: User:Jbmurray/Madness

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

A3 to Prod ?

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

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

You've been invoked

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

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

"Webisodes" and the like

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

Challenge Award - fame at last?

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

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

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

Re: question

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

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

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

(this refers to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CDS Global page update, 27 May 2008

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

Herndon article

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

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

J.M. Hayes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superiority Complex?

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

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

AH-HA!!! You're obviously one of them-there evialllllll deletionists, DGG! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And see above , the section "Ha." That's why I haven;t archived this: I want to display my credentials. DGG (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikigender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Flagged articles

Hello again ...

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

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

Category:Flagged editors

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

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

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

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

)

Current project

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

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

)

WP:Lectures

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

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

H.O.P.E. speech

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

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

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

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

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

Fringe

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

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

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

AfD essay

Greetings, David. I have been playing around recently with the idea of writing an essay on an aspect of AfD you might be interested in. The idea behind the essay (stub version here) is that it would be admirable for inclusionists/eventualists who argue that articles could be improved to an acceptable level to take immediate steps in bringing that article up to scratch. Per this comment, I imagine that you are sympathetic to the notion. Would you be interested in collaborating on the essay or throwing around a few ideas on the subject? Sincerely, Skomorokh 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you do not mean "immediate"--I dont see it in your proposal. --it is many times easier to nominate for deletion than to fix. I fix articles at Afd, yes, but i can only do 1 or 2 a week or so properly (I usually do another 2 or 3, but some of those fixes are minimal & dont really meet my standards for a decent article.) In that week, usually 1000 are nominated, of which probably 200 of the deleted ones could be fixed, and perhaps the same number of the ones that get kept need majpr improvements. But Wikipedia is too large to require fixing to save articles--many articles will not be worked on for long periods,--this is very unfortunate, but until we have more people prepared to work on the less widely interesting topics, it will remain the case. One thing we'll need to get them, is to not delete articles that they might be interested in. them. Incomplete articles are inevitable in a wiki like this.

Lets try to generalize this--that people who nominate for deletion must demonstrate they did at least a minimal search, documenting where they looked.

Maybe it should be a how-to, not an exhortation.

Try a longer draft & I'll look in more detail. DGG (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP

You might consider looking at the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-linguistic programming.--Filll (talk | wpc) 11:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry I missed it. I have long felt a considerable degree of sympathy with the noms views, and am delighted to find that others agree at least in part. Of course, as you and others said, deleting the whole batch is ridiculous, but I would certainly hope for a certain amount of condensation. I'll leave it to others t pick out the worst duplications, but I'll support the merges. Dealing with fringe social science is very much harder than science, because the boundaries are not as clear. I think there is real social science, and am convinced that this subject is far outside it, but it's not as easy to make a convincing argument. DGG (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I happened to see this, I came here for another reason, and I'm under voluntary restriction, but .... I assume this won't be controversial and that it will be welcome. I became aware of and studied NLP for a few years (through reading and practice, not with an NLP practitioner.) Structure of Magic and Bandler and Grinder's study of how well-known therapists actually did their work, as distinct from the generally very unscientific theories they often formulated as rationalizations, were pioneering efforts in the field. I wouldn't call it science, exactly, it's more like engineering. There is no doubt that the subject is notable and that there is plenty of reliable source. If it is presented as science, it's problematic, but, then again, lots of stuff is presented as science that actually is very poorly understood, there are peer-reviewed journals in the field of psychiatry and psychotherapy, filled with articles that are basically informed speculation. And, by the way, the techniques worked, and still work, many of them. But it's a very difficult field to do controlled research in. The hot place right now, as far as my own experience would suggest, is Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, which is still quite mysterious as to how it works, but it does work, any my own experience confirms that, and I see it working with others. It works, spectacularly, with PTSD, where traditional therapeutic techniques have be very ineffective, but ... it's brief, unknown mechanism, and could destabilize a whole industry. Current treatment for PTSD without using EMDR might involve a visit a week, at upwards of $100 per visit, for years. EMDR has been known to dramatically reverse PTSD symptoms in one session, the original clinical trials did that. But I haven't followed recent research in the field. The connection with NLP? Well, NLP was largely rooted, when used for therapy, in the inner resources for change that already exist in the patient, and the EMDR techniques are similar in awakening those resources. Whether or not bilateral stimulation is important (other forms of BL stim are now used, perhaps more commonly than eye movement) is controversial, and it's entirely possible that any other hypnotic technique would work, in the hands of a skilled practitioner. Skilled at what? At developing rapport and trust. (Remember the stereotypical hypnotic induction, the hypnotist holding up a pendulum, or moving a finger back and forth in front of the subject?). --Abd (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please dlete the old Worldview page... I inserted the text into the main and removed any duplicated content but it still needs to be massaged into the main article, see: Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#proposed_merge_of_Worldview_and_working_model_of_neuro-linguistic_programming

AsI understand GFDL, it has to be kept as a redirect to preserve the edit history. I'll make that change. DGG (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

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

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

Stress

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

CSD vs. AfD

The articles in question don't fall under "local chapters" - that was a slightly different yet related item. The articles concerned consisted of two lines, (name and address), and external link to a page where the name appears in a list of related groups, and/or a link to a dead or non-informative homepage. That does indeed give no indication of importance (no sources), unless something being called "Grand" implies importance (which it shouldn't). I am certain that I had to start 4 AfDs that I really didn't need to because of baseless claims of supposed notability "because of the name" or "because this other thing (which also had no independent sources and thus didn't assert its notability) was important."

I also discovered that some of the articles were informationally wrong, and referred to entirely different groups than what the sources were pointed at. Yet I'm the one supposedly "gaming the system" and with a "personal bias" because I don't think we should have articles that remain unsourced for months at a time with no editorial changes and no reliable sources. MSJapan (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

MSJ - the CSD system is not meant for questionable cases, which is what you've been doing. JASpencer (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If an article is wrong, fix it.

If it is downright vandalism, and the vandalism would be unquestionably clear to anyone even if they knew nothing whatever about the subject, tag it for speedy

If it is downright vandalism, but the vandalism would not be immediately clear to anyone ignorant of the subject ,list it at Prod or AfD

if the article is unsourced, try to source it. The proposal that articles that remain unsourced can be deleted for that reason alone, even at AfD, has been repeatedly and decisively rejected by the community. If you want to challenge it , try the Village Pump. If you nominate for speedy on that reason it is disruptive, because you are deliberately going against established policy and instead following what you think the policy ought to be.

If for a particular article, you think either the facts or the notability is unsourcable, nominated for Prod or AfD. It helps to have a good reason, like the result of a search, because if others can source it, they will probably consider that you have made a careless nomination.

For the minimum requirements to keep an incomplete article, see WP:STUB. Again, by repeated decision of the community , it does not have to be sourced.

It is considered unsuitable and a violation of WP:BITE to nominate within a few minutes after it has been written an incomplete article for not indicating any nobility -- instead place a notability tag. If after a few days it indicates no notability whatever, then place a speedy tag. If it indicated anything that any reasonable person could think might possibly indicate notability, use Prod or AfD--se below for the advantages of doing it that way.

If however, it contains too little content to tell what the subject is even about, it can be nominated for speedy as empty.

The amount of work involved in trying to recover from an improper deletion , or argue about a questionable speedy, is even worse than the tedious mechanism of Afd. Therefore, if you think there will be any opposition, use AfD. It has the additional advantage that the article can be prevented from re-creation. This is especially valuable if someone is deliberately creating bad articles. DGG (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(This does not imply any view of mine on any of the articles or on the topic. I !vote to delete a lot of things at AfD, and I might well !vote to delete the articles in question. And I do a lot of speedy. We need speedy, and I have no hesitation in using it when it is unquestionable.) But there's no point arguing individual article deletions on personal talk pages. that's what Afd is for. DGG (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, I understood that. DGG (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Question as to your comment at JASpencer's talk page... that "If there is any reason to think the article's deletion would be challenged, even for inappropriate reasons, it is necessary to use AfD."... doesn't that negate the entire concept of speedy deletes? Your approach would allow one disruptive editor to "exempt" an entire topic area from speedy deletes... all because he thinks that anything to do with the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I misworded it there, and have corrected it to even for reasons which would not save the article at AfD. Objectiions that are clearly disruptive should of course be ignored, objections based on good faith are another mater entirely. When I encounter disruptive addition of articles I have no hesitation to warn or even block the person involved. But some of the afd criteria are matters of judgment, and if in any reasonable doubt, I prefer the community's judgment to my own. DGG (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you... that does clarify things significantly. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And thanks, I am always grateful when people point out if I've gotten something wrong, or worded it too broadly. I know I will make mistakes, and I must rely on others to correct them.. DGG (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Birawer

We edit conflicted on this speedy delete, saying exactly the same thing (both declining the speedy). Good to know I'm still in line with your thinking every once and a while :-). I'll get in contact with the article creator shortly and see if I can't help him/her out. Keeper ǀ 76 21:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we'd agree with each other 95% of the time, with almost all the others being matters that we both would consider equivocal. Obviously the remaining few are the ones that stick out. All we can really do there is stay polite and let other people judge. If I've pushed you too hard on any of them I apologize, and I certainly never intend to let an argument on one thing carry over onto another. You might be interested in some of my recent comments today at WT:CSD. DGG (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping we agreed more like 99% of the time :-). I read your comments at wt:csd, very well worded. I support them. I personally, with rare exception anyway, have never "speedy deleted" something that was untagged. Probably because I don't do "new page patrol" and rely on others to patrol properly. I wish there was an easy tool to see my ratio of "agree with patroller" versus "remove tag". I think I'm about 1 of 5 that I "decline" for one reason or another, maybe but hopefully not more like 1 of 10 (I spend a lot of time at C:CSD). In the last few months, I think the "speedy taggers" have gotten more careful and less bold, which is a good thing. I attribute it to this: Many "speedy taggers" are doing NPP because they foresee an RFA in their near future. It is well known (and appropriate) that if an editor is sloppy as a speedy tagger, they will be sloppy as a speedy deleter, therefore those taggers with "aspirations" of "finishing the job", which seems to be all of them, are reluctant to tag borderline articles. Encouraging, in an ironic sense. Anyway, I'm not an article builder, never pretended to be one, I'm no good at it. I've asked another editor, who I know to be an excellent article rescuer, to take a look at this specific article that you and I both agree isn't speediable. Seeing as this particular artist lives (purportedly) about 5 miles from my home, I don't quite feel right about doing much more than copyediting myself. Thanks for your input and insight. See you 'round, Keeper ǀ 76 22:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes 12:12

"the assertion that someone has written a non-self published book book in any subject is a clear assertion of importance" - oh, dear Lord, that makes my heart break just to read! I'm an author, book reviewer, bookseller and long-time member of the National Writers Union; do you have any idea how many new books come out every year, even when you screen out the self-publishers? Most of us harmless Grub Street hacks will never be notable; and certainly most of my one- to three-book friends are not, nor would they assert themselves to be. This concept, if accepted, would open up the gates to endless floods of vanispamcruftisement! I cannot accede to your request. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (yes, Dave, I know you're a librarian [weren't you a Wombat at one time?]; but librarians aren't subjected to as much of the petty end of the spectrum as booksellers and reviewers are, and see less of the dross and more of the substance)

I never said it was enough to be notable, just avoid speedy, at least in the case of an apparently significant book, and certainly in this case when supported also by published articles. Speedy is deliberately worded very loosely to permit any good faith assertion of notability to pass and be judged by the community. I agree most of the people who have written a single book wouldn't pass notability, but the point is that this is most of the people -- some would, and no one admin should be able to judge that for the same reason we don't speedy books themselves at afd. someone in the field at least should have the opportunity to check for reviews and citations and library holdings and sport things by recognition that need further checking. As for librarians, we get junk enough but of a different sort. I'm not sure I catch the reference to wombats? I invite you to find a suitable wording for what counts as passing speedy, but in this case, since there was material besides the book, I am probably going to Deletion Review, not to support the article particularly, but to establish that your standard of "indication of importance" is too high. DGG (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we disagree. Ah, well; certainly not the first time! (As to the wombats, that's a Stumpers-L reference.) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG - I completely support your position. The point here is not to have an exercise in the use of rhetorics but to operate on the basis of evidence and community feedback to make sure Wikipedia remains true to its purpose of providing useful information written by open and transparent consensus [4]. I'm disappointed to see Orange Mike continue to ignore the feedback from the community. I hope it's not the case for other articles he's been reviewing. Were you able to take the "Deletion Review" action you mentioned?

Alex Omelchenko (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

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

archiving

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

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

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

Fictional (?) book

One of the good example showing how this project is failing is that instead of trying to find out the truth about the book (as you've tried), involved editors are using it to prove bad faith on part of others (see second para). Sad, isn't it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

well, all students learn that it's asking for trouble to add refs relying only on listings on the web but without seeing them. But I'm not perfect here myself.  :) DGG (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Back in 2005 and earlier, it was fairly common to see editors misunderstand what the reference section is for and add stuff that now we all know should be under external links of further reading there. Inline cites helped a lot; before I - just like many, many others - used to lump everything under references, whether we used it or not... it's nice to see how our standards of quality improved. If only that improvement would involve civility and good faith... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN

I understand your frustration, but you really need to stop your ad hominem attacks on him on every AfD he does. It doesn't make you look any better than him, and it also makes you as viable as engaging in WP:POINT as much as he is. If you have a clear problem, initiate a request for comment; maybe ArbCom (you probably know there was already a second look at his conduct, in which they decided no action needed to be taken) will take a third look at his conduct or change Wikipedia's policy on AfDs.

I'm not trying to oppose your takes on things or ride you or like that; we have certainly both agreed on some articles from time to time. I also certainly agree that he is a tad heavy on bringing articles to AfD without exercising other options, but there are other venues for that — AfD, I believe, is not one of them. However, fighting fire with fire doesn't help the situation, either. That's all I want to say. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right that it's overkill, and that I have called sufficient attention to it, and could advantageously use less detail. (My reason for repeating something on every article is that in the past, those articles on which people have not bothered to add keep comments have gotten deleted). Additionally, I have refrained from the temptation to respond with an identical rationale to his identical rationales, and have reworked each one specifically for the particular situation. I havent even given the same !vote -- some keep, some merge, some redirect. One even delete. They are not ad hominem. I consider what he is doing disruptive, and I am talking about that, not him. I have said nothing about motivation except repeating what he has said himself. I am willing to work with him or anyone in effecting merges and other improvements in these articles.

And I thank you for letting me know the bad effect I am apparently having. It's good to have outside critiques. DGG (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Articles must establish their notability and verifiability clearly and objectively. If someone is creating an article, it is just as in adequate to write the first paragraph of what may become a ten paragraph article as it is to create an article containing nothing more than the reiteration of its title and then reject claims that the subject is not notable. Editors who cannot or will not create articles with substantiating references from the start must be ready to have these articles deleted, or they should create them as userfied articles. Patrollers of the new articles page cannot be expected to check the HTML of all the nonsense articles they see to verify whether or not references were indeed placed and it is only the lack of a reflist markup that keeps them from being revealed. While your intentions may be excellent, your position is essentially defenseless. I therefore respectfully reject your your comments and ask that you instead direct your efforts at informing new editors that new articles must establish their own merit prior to them figuring out how to use Wikipedia, or they risk speedy deletion of what appears to be nonsense, unverified un-notable refuse, hoaxes and vandalism. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, articles must establish their notability and verifiability clearly and objectively to be kept, but they merely have to give some indication of it to pass speedy. Please reread WP:CSD and WP:STUB The first policy that you suggest, that an article must have references to be kept at speedy,. has been suggested from time to time, but repeatedly rejected. If you want to propose it, try the WT:CSD page But first read it's very long archives. That an article must be complete or even tenable at the first edit is also not policy, though I do warn people that they would do well not to make too fragmentary a start, because some admins are a little trigger-happy. What I said on your talk page, that it is not appropriate to speedy an in process article the first few minutes of its existence, is standard practice. You are not currently prevented from placing such a tag, but if you do, be aware that I and others will criticize you for it. What I am saying is not my eccentric way of doing things, but standard here. Please read or reread WP:BITE and WP:Deletion Policy.If an article can be improved by normal editing, it is not a candidate for speedy.

However, we do have a way to accomplish the sort of challenge to an article you have in mind. That is the WP:PROD process. You might want to consider it in the cases of patently incomplete articles.

I know you've been here about one year longer than I have, but I don't think what you have been suggesting has ever been the policy. And I notice your top userbox, so I think we might have some common ground after all. We do have common interests. Perhaps we will meet at one of the NYC meetups. DGG (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Comments on my Talk Page

Originally, I started deleting comments on my talk page from rude people that disagreed with some of my outspoken positions. Just don't need to keep reading negative nonsense from people that can't take alturnative or unpopular views.

But with respect to AfD comments, I generally don't see the point of repeating what the nominator has written if it is the same as my thoughts on the issue, which is what "as per nom" means. Do you disagree? Which AfD that I've voted on are you interested in? Perhaps I can expand my comments. But again, if my thoughts are the same as the nominator's, what's the point in a word-for-word copy since "as per nom" says the same thing?

prod

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refining AfD outcomes

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

I will be in Brooklyn on 2/7/09. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

we should make sure to find each other.DGG (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:TTN

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

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

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

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

An offer of help, other inclusionists, and suggestions

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

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

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

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

Speedy keep

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

I have elsewhere commented just now [5] that the reason for speedy keep should be a "clearly mistaken nomination": or something of the sort, without implying anything about good faith. Except in extreme circumstances, we can't really judge people's motivations, and they are not necessarily relevant. for example, I readily admit that the motivation of one of my principal opponents in some recent discussions is their good faith and honest and forthright desire to reduce the Wikipedia coverage of fiction, which they in all honesty think excessive. That they are totally wrong and will destroy one of the key positive features of Wikipedia does not affect their good faith.

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

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

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

Appreciation

Just a note of gratitude for the fine work you do, as exemplified in your post at WP:EL#Shmoop, and many many elsewheres. You deserve a herd of barnstars, and much emulation. Thanks, repeatedly. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A true CSD survey

Well, I've gone through a number of CSD nominations from the past month and found about 40 that I thought might pose interesting questions on how people perform CSD's. Basically, I'm asking people to review the article in question and answering the question, "how would you handle this" with one of four options:

1. Agree with criteria for deletion. 2. Disagree with criteria for deletion, but would delete the article under another criteria. 3. Disagree with the criteria for deletion, but this is a situation where IAR applies. 4. Disagree with speedily deleting the article.

YouR my hero

I am so impressed with your work on wikipedia. Your thoughtful contributions have been showing up everywhere. The way you carry yourself in conversations is inspiring. It is no wonder that Colonel Warden recently called you a "model of intelligent and discriminating inclusionism...quite influential in forming policy". Thank you. travb (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DGG was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

On December 30, 2008, User:DGG was inducted into

The Hall of The Greats
This portrait of Randy Couture was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.

much appreciated. I understand the significance. DGG (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are our prize fighter against deletionists, a blood sport that rivals mixed martial arts. Not to mention all the work you do on sources, improvements, references, the list goes on and on and on.... Thank you, DGG The Great. --David Shankbone 20:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Dictionary of English Idioms

Alexander Dictionary of English Idioms has been tagged for speedy deletion as promotional. It may have been deleted by the time you read this message. I can't find references for it, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. --Eastmain (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its a minor publication of their language school, unknown otherwise, and accordingly I've speedy deleted it as promotional for the school. DGG (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Something else to consider

What do you think about IC 5357 and the half dozen or so stubs like it? Are all galaxies notable - there's likely to be "billions and billions" of them per Carl Sagan - even if we can never write more thant what's in that article - which is basically where to look for the place from the Earth? Are all stars- "billions and billions" of them in each galaxy, most likewise without much more than their location to be said for them? Are all asteroids or other balls of ice and rock out there (or down here)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What do I think? i think we should add the same information for each of the few million others that have been catalogued. Though for convenience, we ought to group them together in articles. The notability=article equation is part of the problem. There are 2 qys: should Wikipedia cover something, and, separately, how should it be arranged. I have, for example, no objection in the least to group episodes together, as long as a reasonable amount of information is included for each, including the actors, timing, and main plot lines from beginning to end. I think we could have coverage on every street in a city; most of them would be in groups. It would be easier to do than to argue about which ones to include.

The real reason to restrict notability is to main the encyclopedia free from promotion and advertising. As this doesn't affect galaxies, we don't have the problem there. the real point is to stop arguing about arrangement and subdivision, and start writing content.

Personally, i think it would be a good idea to build a stub on every possible notable subject, and encourage people to fill them in. Where would I start? every noun and verb in wiktionary, that there is more than one reference for. DGG (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This made me chuckle - we worry about both ends of the scale don't we? "are hamlets notable?" at the one and then "are galaxies notable" at the other. :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

request for input

here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

verifiability and context

I appreciate your recent comment - would you mind proposing wording you would find acceptable? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

useful general remark

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

The notability problem in a nutshell

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

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

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

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

Spreadin the word.....

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

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

You are me

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

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

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

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

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

Prods

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

It does not cite any references or sources.

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

Its lead section requires expansion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletions over concensus

Greetings. You seem like a very smart and level-headed admin, which is why I have come to you for advice. Admin David_Fuchs has been going around ignoring concensus at AfD and deleting things based on his own "research and conclusions", as one person puts it. I thought it was an isolated incident with the "Space Ghost" episodes AfD I participated in, but apparently it's not. Please have a look at the last several entries on the bottom of his talk page. This needs to stop! I'm not really sure what the best move is at this point, please advise. AfD hero (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with AfD hero. The problem in that discussion is that not all of those episodes are of the same "notability". Whereas the others on the list can arguably be considered in the same context, Baffler Meal is absolutely not in the same league as the others, because it is the first appearance of the Aqua Teen Hunger Force and even appears on additional DVD releases than the Space Coast episodes (i.e. on the Auqa Teen DVDs). That episode thus is notable in comparison to other Space Goast episodes because it is perhaps the lone Space Ghost episode to appear not just on the Space Ghost DVD release, but also on the Aqua Teen DVD release as a special feature, for being the first appeareance of characters in a franchise that spawned a video game and theatrically released movie, and as such is covered in a variety of secondary sources as a result. Thus, no real opinion on the merges for the other episodes; however, "Baffler Meal" absolutely is a stand out episode that merits its own article and that does indeed have real potential for further improvement. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, we can debate the merits of each AfD all day, but the bigger problem is that we have an admin unrepentantly running around ignoring concensus and deleting stuff. AfD hero (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:DRV? It is a great place to get the community to review the deletions an admin has done. Chillum 22:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing I can do personally to stop him, you know. The only practical way is first deletion review, to show the closes were in fact wrong, and then if it continues after that, then there are ways to proceed. I watch for the deletion reviews, but start first with the one that makes the best argument. Remember that you will need to show not just that he ignored the consensus, but that he ignored the consensus of good arguments from established editors, and his choice of a rule was unreasonable. The situation which Deletion Review can not currently handle is one like Camberwell Baptist Church, where he made an argument in the closure he should not have made there, and possibly did close contrary to consensus, but there is no real chance the article would actually stand if enough attention were paid. I didn't participate in that one because I thought my !delete wasn't needed. Although I myself think such deletions should be redone, it is very rare for deletion review to overturn a close which actually reaches the acceptable conclusion about the article--that's wrong, but that's what generally does happen here. DGG (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The proper course of action in all of these cases is to relist the articles at AfD, and transplant David_Fuchs' arguments from the top down to the comments, then let someone else close. People at DRV usually fail to realize these sort of subtle points and instead treat the DRV as a 2nd AfD, except with a higher barrier for keeping. So I don't think I will bother going to DRV at this point, though if someone else did I would support them. For now I will just wait and keep a watchful eye. AfD hero (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your AfD statement

In regards to this: I spent three hours before nominating the individual looking through various databases and news sources to find reliable secondary information to prove his notability. I found hits for the two other Robert Prices, but not for this one. Your statement seems to say the opposite but provides no evidence. Your statement also seems to fail criteria under WP:AUTHOR, as having a lot of works is meaningless. Please back up your statement with reliable secondary sources or strike it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have helped to indicate the search you had made at the nomination, but I do not see I said that you had not done so (as I sometimes have with some other editors)--I assumed you had searched, for I know you are generally careful. As for what I did say, I stand by it: having several books with hundreds of copies in libraries and being published by major publishers in the field=some degree of popularity. DGG (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:V doesn't say that an author is notable by sales, nor does having books in a few hundred libraries mean that he is even close to a best seller. Your radical take on inclusion would now include almost every single obscure journal out there. The mere fact that this "cult favorite" and "best seller" is forced to work at an unaccredited school because no one respects his scholarship or what he says in a serious academic way, let alone is willing to report on him in credible news, shows that he fails BLP inclusion. The whole page is heresay from Lovecraft blogs. The page is a coatrack. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You raise several issues

1. I have !voted to delete a number of journals, some in the last few days. There are some people who would include every peer-reviewed journal, but I am not sure I accept that. As for obscure journals, and other obscure topics in the humanities, I am certainly as inclusionist as reasonably possible. I came to Wikipedia in the first place in good part for that very purpose--and to improve the quality of the ones it already had. our content in that area. Surely you know that some other people here tend to regard much of what all academics in the humanities do as obscure?
2. As for what counts as cult literature, opinions differ. What is one person's serious profession is another person's cult interest. The history of scholarship in the humanities has shown the progressively broadening the sphere of genres to which serious attention is paid. I see 24 academct heses on Lovecraft [6], including 4 for a Ph.d. I see MA theses from Brown and Columbia and OSU.

The AfD is the place for discussion on the notability of the subject. DGG (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DGG, my point is simply this - BLP requires us to be careful about notability. We need third party reliable sources. I searched. I tried to find them. I couldn't. If there are some sources about the books, then sure, the books can be included. But for a BLP we need biographical information from reliable sources that prove notability. The books were not ground breaking enough for the scholar, professor, or author criteria. There is not enough third party sources about his life. He did very little beside write some controversial books that didn't even get much show outside of a few blogs, some dedicated propagandist groups, and the such. Please find reliable third party sources if you truly feel this page needs to be here. Right now, its just a coatrack for a large group of IPs. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

since the article is primarily about what he can certainly be proven to have done, which is to write certain published works over the span of his career, I do not see how BLP comes into it. One's books being controversial does not make them less notable. this being my talk p., I end the discussion here. The AfD is the place where you can continue if you like, but I've said I think I need to say, both there and here. DGG (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DGG, if the article is about what he has "done", i.e. summaries of what his books state as fact, isn't that the very definition of coatrack? This is a named page. Thus, it has to be a biography. On that very basis alone, it should be deleted. If you think that information on the books should be saved, then please state "create a new page for the books". This is a biography, not a page for the books. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You could not be more wrong. Articles about people are primarily about their accomplishments, and so the consensus is--unanimous except for you-- the afd has closed as a SNOW Keep. this topic is now closed here also. DGG (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

and the related Joseph T. Dipiro article: an IP editor commented that one was very similar to content on another website, and a quick google search revealed that they both appear to be copyright violations. I agree that the journal could be made into a good article, but it may be better to start from scratch. I've tagged the articles, but if you could review and do what you feel is right I'd be grateful. Verbal chat 20:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, I can rewrite them. DGG (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll help if needed - hopefully tomorrow. Yours, Verbal chat 22:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)(good god I nearly put "xxx" rather than ~~~~ by mistake)

Question from power corrupts

• User_talk:Ikip#no_real-world_notability_established Maybe you could help answer? I know you are considered the intellectual giant on these issues. Ikip (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

AMAB may have convinced you, but he did not convince me., i commented there. DGG (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced, I just respect him writing a long answer to someone elses question on my talk page.

I am thankful that you wrote a long answer too. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Open Access Blog

Is not Open Access News. http://openaccessblog.com/ is a well-meaning but not notable blog. Fences and windows (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New York Public Library classes

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

Threshold knowledge

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

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

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

Good Germans DRV

Hi DGG, Would you be good enough to review my comment (and the rest of) the DRV for Good Germans. The whole situation is one of the crazier things I've run into, and I trust you to give it a fair hearing. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

yes. an editor first mistakenly converted it to Wiktionary format and now complains it was transwikified. The admin should ideally have spotted it, but I am not sure i would have. DGG (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful (as usual) input in the DRV discussion, DGG. As long as the outcome doesn't bar re-creation of the article, I'll be happy. Cgingold (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

PS - Thanks also for your remarks re adminship on my talk page -- much appreciated. I'll respond there later -- but I am really curious to know how you even spotted that section in the first place, seeing as it's pretty well hidden, nowhere near the bottom of the page. In fact, I had to look in the edit history to figure out why I had one of those orange "new messages" banners! Cgingold (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

seeing your work at DelRev, I checked if you were an admin, & seeing you were not, I considered you might be a good candidate. Before I go ahead with something like that, I read the talk p. history to see if there will be problems. For example, you might have consistently said no to other nominations. BTW, If you click on the "last change" in the banner, you get the history open to the latest change.) DGG (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

True enough - but I've gotten in the habit of clicking on the "my talk" link at the top of the page. Anyway, thanks for the bit of explanation, now I don't have to puzzle over it. :) Cgingold (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Asteroids

Hi, The Great Asteroid Stub debate has started again here, and input from someone with awareness of the administrative problems of swarms of minimal stubs might be helpful. Alai (who carried the aministrative flag previously) seems inactive of late, so I saw your note in Archive 9, and thought you might join in, or perhaps you could alert some others with useful insight? I believe we can provide the essential information in a table format (with thousands of entries, NB), with links out to serious articles. But I hate to trash their creator's (Captain Panda) efforts by mass deletion, beyond what is really necessary to alleviate the problems these stubs actually create. I would really like to bring this discussion to a satisfactory actionable conclusion this time.

Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Declined speedy on Joseph Haslag

In declining the speedy did you note that the author did PR for the subject of the article? User talk:Jacknaudi/Joseph Haslag, Talk:Joseph Haslag It's your call, I'm not going to AfD, I'm not even going to watch anymore, but I do hope wp doesn't get clagged up with PR dross. Bazj (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

writing bios with COI is discouraged but not forbidden. Good PR people can be an asset, if they follow the rules-- see our FAQ (on businesses and other organisations). Many people write such articles poorly--professors & their helpers tend about 50:50 to omit the stuff that shows their notability (presumably thinking it obvious), or to enter a lot of spam and irrelevancies including every book review they ever wrote. If they do it OK, good. If not, and they meet WP:PROF, we add or subtract, as needed. COI is a warning that some editing is likely to be necessary. The chairmanship and the publications almost certainly show him as a major figure in his field, and meet the requirements at WP:PROF. Thearticle does need some improvements, & I will follow up and make sure that they are made. Nominate for speedy as promotional when there is no core for an acceptable article. See WP:CSD for the formal standard. If you're dubious about an article and it does not meet the standards for CSD, consider using PROD.DGG (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Library types by subject

Category:Library types by subject, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.

I haven't formulated an opinion on this yet, so I'll be interested to see what you have to say. Cgingold (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thought you'd like to know, I've made a renaming proposal for this category. Cgingold (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)= Merge discussion at Talk:Tom Tucker (Family Guy) ==

I've opened a merge discussion at the above-mentioned location. Please consider participating if you are interested. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned you on AN.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_administrative_assistance_with_whitelist_request_for_Lyrikline.org_page_for_Chirikure_Chirikure The copyright bugaboo is persistent. --Abd (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

commented there. DGG (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy, did you! Thanks. Beetstra, who had unintentionally derailed the process, made up for it by realizing he'd made a mistake by linking the specific whitelisting to the global and site-total whitelisting issue. I.e., he wanted to deal with the whole site, not a pile of individual whitelisting requests. Understandable. Perhaps there was a method to my madness.

However, a journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. If I couldn't get one poet link whitelisted, how likely would it be that I could succeed in a site-wide whitelisting. Now, the existing situation may still require some attention here. He whitelisted the English language pages, and I'm not sure that will be sufficient. However, one step at a time! He did, in the end, much more than I'd asked for, and we can clean up details later.

Plus I think I now have a suggested process that will avoid most contention over whitelisting caused by blacklisting admins circling the wagons and routinely confirming their original actions by denying whitelisting requests based on propriety of blacklisting, which is a totally different issue than single-link whitelistings. Because only blacklisters and antispam volunteers routinely watch the blacklist/whitelist pages, however, the issues get linked, quite naturally. It is as if DRV consisted only of a panel of admins who had speedy-deleted articles!

I made almost-specific proposals along these lines on my Talk in response to comment from Beetstra announcing his whitelisting.

Beetstra, while becoming difficult at times, has overall been very helpful, he seems to have recognized that I'm not out to wreck the place, that I'm simply standing up to represent the other side of the equation, that little detail: in the end, it's about content, not about killing all the spam. I believe that we can do both, efficiently, making the anti-spam volunteer's job easier and more efficient. It involves separating the whitelisting process from blacklisting, and establishing a guideline that active blacklist admins (and active volunteers) abstain from denying requests for whitelisting. No harm of one of them accepts such a request, because they are, from my experience, quite unlikely to do so abusively. It's just the denials that sometimes are a problem. It's a product of battlefield mentality that is natural, as you know, when dealing with mountains of spam. WP:WikiProject Spam actually suggests that WP:AGF be set aside in dealing with spam, and I'd say, sure, but that's not complete. Stop spam, intercept it, suspending AGF, on "probable cause." Arrest the linkspam (i.e, blacklist). But then don't have the same people making content decisions on the same links. Use the tools or don't. Don't do both. Normally we talk about, with admin abuse (and I'm making no accusations of impropriety in saying this, admins are following existing practice, usually) involvement in an article and then use of tools. Here there is the use of tools, to protect the project, then content involvement. I.e., an admin then asserts a decline, typically, based on, not clear content criteria, but defense of the original blacklisting. Normally, with content, any editor may assert content that is reasonable (not necessarily acceptable) by making the edit, and it's a problem only if there is clear violation, like vandalism or BLP violation or clear copyvio, there are no rules requiring that all edits be "acceptable." But when it comes to reviewing whitelist requests, suddenly, extremely stringent requirements are set up, and the proposed link must be "necessary." Why? The whitelist doesn't make more work for the linkspam volunteers, as long as there are not a torrent of such, and if the linkspam volunteers pay practically no attention to the whitelist, they simply have less distraction. If an inappropriate link is whitelisted because some spammer pulled the wool over the eyes of a user who closed, it is very, very easy to delete the whitelist regex.

The whitelist page could be mostly managed by non-admin users, who would review whitelist requests, and would routinely approve those which are reasonable edit proposals on the face. Any autoconfirmed user who wants to add a link to a blacklisted site would simply propose it there, perhaps with a link to an article talk page notice about the proposed edit. If an IP or site-owner, etc., wants to ask for a link, fine. On the whitelist talk page. So by the time a whitelist link is approved, there are at least two (and in the presence of contention, three at a minimum) autoconfirmed editors in favor of allowing it. And then implementation can be done by any admin who knows regex, or the blacklist volunteers could be requested to review approvals and add them en masse. (for many links, the regex is pretty simple, and I'm sure there are lots of regular editors who know regex and who would consult.) As I see it, the page could recommend delisting or total-site whitelisting (with global blacklisting), but that request, if it is approved on the whitelist page by other than an acting admin, might go to the blacklist page for review regarding risk of continued linkspam. Before a judge releases the prisoner, the judge might ask the police if there seems to be some immediate and continued danger from the prisoner. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is a possible pool of volunteers who might watch a whitelisting page if it gives them some responsibility, some level of authority to help others make edits. The risk of damage from a bad decision is small, compared to the torrent of linkspam that exists. If there isn't enough help, a backlog would develop, but, now, it wouldn't be the fault of the blacklist volunteers! It would be up to the community to fix it, or not. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I look at it from another aspect: the same admins who tend to overdelete spam also tend to overdelete articles. You cannot get a set of rules that will limit the damage, without a very elaborate set of controls. There is great concern at the moment about the existing procedural overhead. The best approach I think is to gently adjust the rules, and attempt to persuade the people. There is no possible rule that will replace general watchfulness and a willingness to speak up. All questionable admin actions should be challenged, and I am not speaking of this issue only. Even people too stubborn to back down after making a mistake on a specific issue can still learn eventually. DGG (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Congratulations on your chess set post, you got it right. I know you are an Admin, but with respect, most people that are Hall Monitors and Admins are more likely to be Essjay types than say a professional person with a real job. Anyway, I will try to return the favour for you some day. Happy editing and my best regards. Green Squares (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's a very wide variety between admins, in both quality and background, and I'm not sure how well the two correlate. Some of the admins who tend to support me the most frequently are undergraduates or (I think) high school students. One tends to notice the nastier people more, because nastiness is prominent. I think the general prevalence of it is overrated, and that much of it is due to a few individuals. And they aren't all of them admins,either. DGG (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The hall monitor that deleted the articles states that they can be recreated, but he is refusing to it, do you have the sysop tools to put the incorrectly deleted articles back, or the authority to force the hall monitor to put them back? Green Squares (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the admins who tend to support me the most frequently are undergraduates or (I think) high school students. LOL, a few of us are older :) StarM 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as of my final reading, there is certainly enough support for an "Overturn" yet I do not see the articles going back up?! Thanks Green Squares (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

NAS

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

Hemispherectomy Foundation

Hi DGG- I'm not here to complain, just want to explain my actions. On Hemispherectomy Foundation I removed the proposed deletion tag, based on the fact that I feel it is just as notable as Vitamin C Foundation or Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which have been hanging around for a while and are lacking in quality. I did add another reference source to Hemispherectomy Foundation and do intend to expand it as time allows. Acceptable? Thanks, Paxsimius (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

those other two are dubious as well in their present state & I've marked them. The articles (all 3 or them, actually) must have substantial coverage in 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material based on press releases) to show their importance . Andsome financial data helps also. I'll check back eventually. DGG (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretzel

This article existed with a timeline as is reproduced on the talk page. This has been converted to plain text consistent with standard encyclopedia formatting. One editor, and I tend to agree, thinks the timeline was a more useful and accesible format for the information. What do you think? Is there a way to have the cake and eat it too? Have you had any experiences with timelines in the past? Clearly it's not standard formatting, but they can be useful and encyclopedic devices me thinks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

commented there. DGG (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Eleazar (painter)

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

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

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

Notability of books

I've noticed you quote WorldCat in AfD discussions when referring to books (i.e., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Volonakis Davis). I was wondering how this works. For example, I came across Something Borrowed (novel) when doing NPP and I went to worldcat.org and of course the book is there, but I'm not sure how to use that tool to come to the oh, this book must be notable conclusion? Thanks :) §FreeRangeFrog 01:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to consider the type of the book, its date, and the country it's published in. WorldCat includes about 90% of US & Canadian academic libraries, about half to one quarter the US & Canadian public libraries, most academic libraries in the UK, & scattered libraries elsewhere, To find only 4 or 5 library with a book implies either that it has not been published yet, or that essentially no public libraries bought it. If it were in Bulgarian or even Spanish, this wouldn't have any relevance. If its the sort of book few libraries buy, such as pornography, it wouldn't be relevant. You see if something is notable by comparing it with other similar books. "Gone with the Wind", to take an example, is in over 4000 libraries. This book is in 1100. That's about normal for notable current fiction. What would I conclude if it were 200? I'd have my doubts. But if it has been published 10 years ago, that might means something. You need to allow for time after publication: for fiction most public libraries buy the book right after publication, but dispose of it in 5 or 10 years if it isn't read any more, though academic libraries normally buy more slowly, but keep whatever fiction they buy. If, on the other, hand, it were a nonfiction work on medieval history, 200 is pretty good. If it is poetry, sometimes 100 is good. For this -particular book, there's another strong indication -- I see translation into 7 other languages.

Now, the article is worthless as it stands. The first step is to add some data about the publisher and the date of publication & the library holdings and the translations, referencing it to WorldCat. Next step is to find reviews. For popular works, the easiest way now is to use Google News Archive. (for academic books, Google Scholar) [7]. I see hundreds, including, on the first page ones from USA today, SF Chronicle, Atlanta Constitution, Library Journal, Booklist, etc. i also see a hint that its been made into a film. It's announced for 2011,[8],[9] but not even cast yet, so we can't do an article on the film, but we can mention it if we can find a better source. I suspect the plot summary is copied from somewhere, & probably more should be said--if you can find a decent summary in a review, you can use it as a basis if you rewrite it. People often put in naïve articles about their favorite books. About half the time, they're a lot of other people's favorites also. This is why we don;t speedy them. Good job spotting it as having potential. DGG (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Checking the article on the author, that too needs some sources.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. I always felt a little bit on shaky ground when looking at books, but this will help enormously. I had a feeling this particular book was notable based on a cursory search, but I was concerned I was running into some pop culture mirrors and smoke so I decided not to touch it at all. It certainly should be expanded, based on this information. Thanks again. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 04:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, avoiding the fan stuff and Wikipedia mirrors is the key advantage of using Google News Archive instead of Google. It's made all this sort of topic much easier to work on. DGG (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Jews and Scots

Hi DGG, thanks for your note. I think you do tons of great work, but when I suggested putting you to work I didn't mean on that article, so to speak, since I don't think the title is right. Does that make sense? I think the topic is important, but not in this form. Oh, I see now that it's gone. You know, maybe I should put my money where my mouth is: if I have a moment, I'll see about adding a note (or a paragraph) with those references you found to the Anti-Scottish sentiment article. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the title is not right-- but it's more specific than anti-scottish sentiment--there is a true overlap. I have not yet thought of a better title, or I would have suggested it The material I picked was from the first 20 gbook hits, there seemd to be thousands of others. I wonder what's is the 19th c. novelists.... DGG (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've consulted an expert. The actual best source was already in the article as written: David Daiches, "Two Worlds: an Edinburgh Jewish childhood." Shows how wrong it was for it to be deleted. I rarely use the term political correctness, but it applies here. DGG (talk) 04:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Were you able...

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

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

Johnny Bravo

Yes, I agree - I apologise if my comment seemed unnecessarily combative, it certainly wasn't meant to sound that way. Black Kite 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

so the question then, we ought to approach from first principles is the proper handling of disputed merges and redirects, at least for articles that come to afd. too many conflicts have arisen from this. and the results have been inconsistent, and not always rational. Here more than anything else regarding fiction articles, is the need to find proper compromise--and it isnt just fiction articles, though those presently are the biggest problems. this needs to be considered more generally. I don;t really want to start this tonight--it will get in the way of the RW. Essentially the question is the alternative virtues of a widely-seen and very open discussion at a centralized place, subject sometimes to overbalance with people with general views and to over rapid argument with disputed consensus, and more lengthy discussions at article talk pages, less visible to the general community, and subject to ownership by those with concern for a particular group of articles. For dedicated inclusionists or deletionists, there are advantage in either venue, if one works accordingly. We want something where any advantages will be for those who wish to compromise. A key feature of encouraging compromise is to discourage those who oppose compromise, either in a particular case or for a broad class, from overthrowing such solutions. I have no pre-built solution--any process can be used wrongly & devising new is not likely to work without extensive adjustments. DGG (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Libraries & the Cultural Record

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

Eleazar

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

Clickety click

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

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

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

mediawikiblacklist

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

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

David Yermack (finance professor)

Not really sure what to do with this. I saw you removed a PROD in June 2008. It does demonstrate some notability, but the article is problematic in its current state. Also, if it is to remain, shouldn't it be at David Yermack? Currently, that link is a redirect to this article. Enigma^msg 22:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks for noticing this. It was originally entered as the right name, and had been (incorrectly) moved. I moved it back. A full professor at NYU Business School, one of the most distinguished in the world, is almost certainly notable by WP:PROF, though the things that show it need to be added--mainly in this case, his major publications and their citation record. I see no reason for a notability tag, as the article has a 99% chance of passing AfD. Though only editors-in-chief of major journals are automatically notable, being an Associate Editor of major journals is a non-trivial accomplishment, and we usually add this material--though we remove lists of where people have merely reviewed for,which is a trivial accomplishment. Similarly, being a visiting professor at distinguished universities is also a significant contributing factor to notability. so I added this back. I'll watch the article. DGG (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Students' Guide

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

DRV process, restoration and system

Heya, your recreations of DRV pages are a great help for us non-admins helping out in DRV and majorly appreciated. I was wondering, would you back up a proposal for a change to the DRV process to include restoration of the article as deleted to DRVPAGE/PAGENAME instead of mainspace? That would still allow non-admins to see the page while avoiding any confusion or frustration that may arise from the temporary restoration and would keep deleted articles out of mainspace (and thus main search index) until a decision is made to recreate them... For example, the recreation of TurnKey Linux (DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29) could then be done to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 29/TurnKey Linux instead of the mainspace location. Obviously recreation would not be mandatory (as this would be difficult to enforce/support without placing further strain on an already low population of admins) and wuld not be possible if the page contained attacks, copyvios or similar but could be requested and serviced exactly the way it works now. Just a thought. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] (talk · contribs) 14:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support any procedure which gets the articles routinely visible during DRV. The proposed one has some disadvantages: The work involved for the admin would be slightly greater in moving it to a sub page, because after the DRV the page would have to be moved back even if deleted, so it can later be found where one would expect it. It will also be a burden on the servers for long pages, as all the links would need to be changed, and then changed back; for pages with a few thousand revisions, the load is significant. But it does have the great merit of keeping it out of mainspace & the index; personally, I dont think it normally does any harm to have it there for 5 days or so, especially if it was originally in mainspace for a long period; however, many people do think this harmful,and the proposal would eliminate their objections,and probably be easier to pass than a plan for routinely using mainspace. We are not the least bit short of administrators: what we are short of is fully active administrators. Too many use it as a trophy, but don't do much of the work. But a script could probably be written do do the move, and the move back. It can't be literally required, because we cannot do this for copyvio and many BLPs, and there's no real point in doing it for obviously meritless reviews. I think it should be required otherwise, just as I think notification of all significant editors should be, and all who commented at the previous XfDs. But there is no reason I can see not to use it boldly as a trial.DGG (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and suggested this change at the end of WT:DRV. [[::User:Usrnme h8er|Usrnme h8er]] (talk · contribs) 08:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Notifying of featured article review of William Monahan

I have nominated William Monahan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

commented. the problems are quite radical. With the socks gone, we can see some rationality about this. DGG (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Chancing my arm on NOT PLOT

See what you think of this, it might fly. [10], Hiding T 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldnt plot be the dominant element in our articles on fiction? Frankly, I think it often should be. Give me an argument to the contrary. I decided to express this there boldly. [11] DGG (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright, scope and consensus. But you know the arguments as well as I do. If you've come to a different conclusion that's your call. I don't think that plot can dominate an article if we are to remain within the law, and I also do not feel it is within our scope for plot summary to dominate our coverage of fiction. I also don't think the consensus is that plot summaries are the dominant reason we cover fiction. But the wind seems to have caught it for the minute. I feel like Charlie Brown, wary of that kite-eating tree. Hiding T 08:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright is irrelevant in small summaries (it is indeed a factor for some of the naive contributors who lift them from program guides or other published works, true, it could be done so much to excess as to violate fair use.) Scope, now, I'm asking you why it should not be within our scope. And as for consensus, that's circular: I'm asking you what should be our consensus. At the moment, I would hesitate before claiming real consensus for anything in this area. DGG (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright is not irrelevant, because copyright applies to substantiality as well as length. Copyright is always relevant. Regarding scope, I can't think why retelling plot would be the dominant reason to include an article in an encyclopedia. As to what I think consensus should be, I think what's emerging at WP:PLOT and WT:NOT is good for now. No? Hiding T 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Objective opinion on two more category deletions?

I've got a bit of a mess on my hands here with two user categories and I'd like your opinion if you have a moment to go over the material. It looks like I'll also be moving forward with a DRV on these since I just heard back from the closing admin. I had really hoped to avoid the mess the DRV is likely to create...sigh
The categories involved are Category:Wikipedians who use irssi and Category:Wikipedians who use mIRC. I finished reworking them on March 25th and the very next day Killiondude attempted to have them deleted while working a WP:UCFD backlog. There had been a proposal to delete and upmerge these to Category:Wikipedians who use IRC on UCFD in Dec 2008. The UCFD discussion was started on December 21, 2008 and closed January 13, 2009 and had a total of two "votes"; one as the nominator and one "per nom". (The nominator, VegaDark now also wants to merge/delete Category:Wikipedians who use XChat [12] which I just finished rebuilding after it was undeleted.)
Resulting discussion took place on Black Falcon's talk page and then picked back up on my talk page. There was also some related discussion on Killiondude's talk page, ABCD's talk page, and MBisanz's talk page.
I may also ping David Eppstein as I know he would also be impartial and also give me a straight opinion. Considering a number of people have alluded to me being "off my rocker" for pursuing this issue, I figure a couple impartial opinions would be a good thing to have before moving forward.
Now, if I could go just one week without someone pulling out a can opener...
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good to know who uses what so you can go to someone for help. This is a reason for keeping all computer-related categories, just as for language. The principal of that is important. Myself, I hate IRC. But I know enough to know that the different clients work differently. DGG (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to have been movement afoot over at WP:UCFD to delete all user categories that were not directly related to or somehow "useful to" Wikipedia. The only guideline documentation I can find related to this is in the first section of WP:USERCAT. While I don't think we need categories such as Category:Wikipedians who own neon green sweaters I don't understand the mass-purge of "Wikipedians ..." categories for things that serve a clear purpose and are considered useful to many who work on various parts of Wikipedia.
Our of curiosity, why do you hate IRC? I personally don't like it for Wikipedia stuff mainly due to the lack of transparency. I tend to stay away from the freenode network and Wikipedia channels for this very reason.
--Tothwolf (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

there has indeed been such movement. I think it a little absurd, but so they do conduct the arguments so I replied based on the assumption people would say that: The benefit to the community is that many of the community use IRC for Wikipedia, and this way you know whom to ask. Like when you need someone who knows Esperanto, or Greek. As for IRC, I like a time delay between hearing and responding, and i like being able to pick what i want to pay attention to when i want to pay attention to something. These were the great advantages of email over the phone. DGG (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you refer me to one or more impartial admins who would be willing to help clean this mess up? VegaDark just left another comment on my talk page and I'm really getting tired of trying to deal with this mess. I did uncover exactly what he was up to with these categories though. He is attempting to establish precedents and draft a guideline for user category deletions. This whole thing smells pretty bad but I'm not really sure where to go with it. About the only thing is he doing is taking away from the limited amount of time I have to edit and further discouraging me from working on anything. Tothwolf (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I pinged Dank55 earlier and now VegaDark is wikistalking. He will probably be over here next. Sigh. Tothwolf (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be waiting. The only real solution to UCfD is a long term one: to get more attention to the "minor" XfDs. As for the issue at hand, the solution is another general discussion about the purpose of UCats. I just said on Dank's tallk p. that although I have not much faith in the right thing happening at Del Rev, it probably is the only step to go here. DGG (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that UCFD was recently merged into CfD may help in that regard but the potential downside is people who already dislike categories may vote to delete user categories because they will now be more visible. My concerns with taking this particular issue to DRV is it is likely to become very uncivil. The mIRC users category contains better than 250 users and a good many of them wouldn't like the way VegaDark had handled this any more than I do. Btw, are you following the Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth CfD since it was relisted after the DRV? Tothwolf (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're seriously claiming you haven't taken this to DRV, after I've asked you time and time again to do so, so that I won't look bad? That's laughable. VegaDark (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

VegaDark, Do you want to take this to AN/I and ARB? [13] [14]
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wherever the two of you take it, please take it some place other than here. DGG (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

DGG, will do, moving over to my talk page right now. I appreciate your earlier input. VegaDark only came over here to stir things up further anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Prehistory and protohistory of Poland

I would like to renominate this for GAC, but it could use a copyedit by somebody with English proficiency for prose issues. Would you mind, or would you mind referring this to sombody who could? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead section is the main problem. I know you can do far better, as you often have, so rewrite it essentially completely, and then I'll touch things up. DGG (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanded lead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will try something tonight, and you will see how far I get. DGG (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In return, please look at Proto-Ukrainians. DGG (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi David

Please can you tell me if I have to upload the page Eleazar (painter) that you modified last month? I await your response. Thanks again.--Eleazar1954 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

additional references are needed, and the 3rd paragraph in "Painting" needs rewriting into clearer English. Every place where you refer to what the paiting are and their intention rquires a reference. DGG (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

reply from Ched on recent AfD (Supermarket tabloids)

Hey DGG, how you doing today? Regarding your recent comment at this AfD. While many editor would like to see a simple "Keep" or "Delete" !vote on the XfDs, and in theory perhaps it is preferable to stick to one or the other, in practice I've seen many articles go through quite a change throughout the 5 day (soon to be 7 day?) process. Being an administrator, I'm sure you've seen even more bizarre discussions. I'm not sure how you're hoping to differentiate between "Tabloid" and "Supermarket Tabloid", but I don't have a problem with it either way. I do think that the "Supermarket tabloids in the United States" is a bit pretentious in title, but that's just a passing note on my part.

Getting back to my Merge !vote: While you may prefer a cut-and-dried "Keep-or-Delete" situation in XfD, the changes that articles are able to go through during the process does lend some credence to the possibility that suggestive !votes can accomplish some positive input. At this point in time, neither Supermarket tabloids in the United States nor Tabloid are particularly well along in development. The former is not much more than a list and some trivia, but the later could be brought up to C or B class without too much difficulty I would think. I agree that the former should not have been tagged, but I'm not going to comment on specific editors, but rather the articles and items in general. It simply seems to me, that at this particular time and in their current states, it would benefit the wiki to merge the articles, get Tabloid up to snuff, and then if one finds enough RS to split out a notable "in supermarkets" fork, or a "in particular countries/cultures" fork - that's fine. Well, that's just my thoughts on the matter, and all previous comments are simply IMHO. Best of luck with the article(s). — Ched : Yes?  © 06:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I left a note on the AfD that the closing editor is free to consider my !vote in the "Keep" category ;) — Ched : Yes?  © 06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Commented there—in short, the idea that AfD's are not the place to opine about mergers is contradicted by (extremely longstanding) WP process. Bongomatic 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

and pretty nonsensical practice it is too--see below:

how to differentiate a straight keep close from a merge is an unsolved question. Officially, there is no difference, merge is a form of keep, and technically a merge close is a keep, with a recommendation to merge. All this is,as you seem to realize, a little artificial, and there are two separate problems, whether to keep content at all, and how to arrange it. Obviously, we could have a Wikipedia with a few large articles, or we could have one with many short articles, and it would be essentially just the same,except for such matters as the prominence of topics in Google, and the ability to link & organize: we do not have the technical capability at present to link securely to article sections, and we cannot list article sections in categories. I look forward to the time when the contents of Wikipedia will be rewritten as a proper database, with discrete units of data, and the appearance and arrangement of the content adjustable according to the readers preference and needs--technically, this is attainable now. In dividing things up, I think it is a good idea to follow the literature. The existence of a separate book on a subject usually indicates the advisability of a separate article--it's an indication that there is quite a lot to say. That standard journalism texts differentiate them tends to confirm this. I'm not about to expand it, but it seems to me that the contents and purpose of the typical US supermarket tabloid is very different to that of the US news-stand tabloid--one aims at sensationalism mixed with a little human interest, the other at human interest mixed with a little sensationalism and perhaps a little news. The UK tabloid is another type altogether. In terms of writing articles, sometimes separating out a small subject can lead to easier improvement in an article--many editors here do much better with topics of more limited scope. But i do know that 5 or 7 or 10 days is a very short time to expand an article properly if done by cooperative editing--most articles here grow slowly over time. If, however, one person takes it in hand, then I think the best principle is to let an ambitious and competent writer do pretty much whatever organization they want, and submit it to criticism. There are many ways to build good encyclopedia articles. There are also many ways to avoid doing so, among which is disputing too long over the proper merging at AfD. As my favorite author Samuel Johnson said, you may stand there disputing over which leg to put in your breeches first, but meanwhile your breech is bare. DGG (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly nonsensical, although if an actual consensus occurs to merge in an AfD it seems as valid a conclusion as if it had occurred anywhere else. In any event, my point was simply that your statement that "AfD is not for merge discussions, in any case" is (possibly valid) opinion, and shouldn't be confused with or stated as policy / established and fully documented practice. Bongomatic 08:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

←OK, I'll be the first to admit that I probably should be contributing to articles, rather than socializing on your talk page. Now comes the "but" part. Several things come to mind here, and I've read and re-read the items of topic. Several items spark my desire to reply; one would be that great quote you mention of Mr. Johnson, wonderful quote; our (US) forefathers did have an enjoyable flair for the language. The other, and more relevant, topic would be my choice of Merge as my !vote on this AfD. I'll admit that I'll most likely never become a prolific contributor to any of the XfD sections, but I do wish to conduct my posts in with proper insight. In fact, it appears that you, (DGG), and I actually share many common intents. Be they the expansion, or organization of material on Wikipedia, or more "real life" related items such as politics. I also have no desire to play "let's gang up on the admin" ;). Now looking back, two statements come to my attention, which indicates that it was wrong for me to post the "Merge" portion of my comments. At the AfD and here, I'm drawn to 2 statements:

1. "AfD is not for merge discussions, in any case." (from the AfD)
2. "...and pretty nonsensical practice it is too--see below:" (from posting above)

That indicated (to me at least) that you felt it was wrong to post "Merge" on the AfD topics. Then I came across this post by you, and now I'm really confused. I do want to understand what is proper, but I often find that actual practice doesn't always see intent in an eye-to-eye fashion. — Ched : Yes?  © 09:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: It will be very rare that you'll see a "Delete" from me in any of the XfD sections. Short of NPA, NLT, or an article on what somebodies grandmother had for breakfast - I'm all for including any info we can at Wikipedia. ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 12:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, how to handle these is an unsettled question, and there is no consistent practice. This is because of a very basic discontinuity:

AfD is about whether articles should be kept, not what the content of them should be

A merge or a redirect does not actually keep an article, though it may sometimes keeps the content--but not always. What it does depends on what happens after the AfD.

The problem arises because of our focus on articles and notability , rather than on content , appropriate extent and detail of coverage, and "suitable arrangement." I see no solution within the current framework. The first step to a real solution would be to delete WP:N, but this does not have sufficient support yet. The reason is doesn't is because it would force us to decide what we actually wanted to include in Wikipedia--about which there is no agreement, so people prefer to take their chances with ever more complicated rules on sourcing, and the presence of principles such as NOT NEWS. The current policies are such as to permit a plausible argument for keeping or deleting almost anything. One extreme solution is to say that we we should keep in whatever a sufficient number of established Wikipedians want to keep in--but a glance at some of the articles that actually get some support at AfD indicates this might not work too well. The opposite, to keep out whatever enough people want to keep out, gives equally bad results. Why we think that establishing the balance of those who come to a discussion by chance gives better results is not clear to me, except that it has some rough resemblance to popular democracy. It might even give a reasonable result a little more than half the time. (more seriously,i think for those that are actually disputable rather than obvious, the figure might be as high as 66%) . And it might be that having the arguments as a !vote on content would be even more chaotic and inconsistent.

In the meantime, we can only use whatever manner of argument that will give a reasonable solution case by case, under the framework at hand, for how else are we to proceed? I make no claim to perfect consistency. When I participate in AfD I speak as an advocate to get what I think should be done, either for the particular article at hand, or sometimes in hope to influence the decision on future articles also. When I close, which is rare, I try to judge what others think should be reasonably done. There is no way a community as large as this will actually have consistent consensus on details. DGG (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus test on university topics

You previously commented on the RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you from BOZ

Thanks for the criticism... sometimes that's more constructive than "me too" votes. About all I can say is, in all honesty, that yes I probably do lack objectivity regarding AFD. Which would probably be a good reason for me to not play around with AFD at all. It was probably my mistake to mention AFD in the first place; I guess I was just trying to think of what admins do, and thus what I might do. As I also said in my response to Black Kite's question is that I may feel much more comfortable dealing with CSD than AFD. Something else for me to think about. :) BOZ (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I did almost no AfDs my first year as an admin, and still do them very rarely, because I would not want to make a keep close that might be questioned when if some other admin made it it would not be questioned. But, since I would have the power, I needed to persuade people i would use it appropriately. See [Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG]. It often turns out that admins end up working in fields they hadn't planned to. I will revisit the RfAdmin, because I wanted to make a strong statement, not really want to derail the nomination--not that I think I would. DGG (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about how you or anyone else might vote, just wanted to make my position (such as it is) clearer to you, since you brought up the point. I can see where you're coming from, that people would call me into question for closing as Keep or No Consensus too often, but you know the same thing happens when an admin who votes Delete most of the time closes a controversial one as Delete. Still, it might be best for me to keep the lid on that can of worms entirely, unless I do happen to gain some more objectivity in the future. :) BOZ (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I recognize you weren't asking me to change my vote. I decided my vote was a little unjustifiably negative. I had been feeling a little uncomfortable with it. DGG (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have switched to support. Shame that the extreme inclusionist front appears keen to derail another currently running RfA. We need more dedicated vandal fighters like Kww, regardless of his philosophy. Black Kite 23:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not good, Kww is a good sort and deserves the mop but my observation is that the admin corps is generally less inclusionist than the community as a whole and that inclusionist candidates always get an easier ride then deletionist ones because, well, like likes to promote like. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I have a feeling of exactly the opposite, that the active admins , at least at AfD, tend to be deletionist. Presumably this means we each feel we aren't quite getting our way enough of the time, a normal sort of feeling for humans.  :) But seriously I think by and large the community is much more inclusionist than not just the admins, but the people at AfD. I think its the normal tendency of regular contributors, but they dont feel courageous enough to speak up at process unless its their own article that is in danger of being deleted. On the other hand, the people who come to afd regularly mainly come there to get rid of unsuitable articles. it is, let me tell you, having done both, much harder to defend than remove a borderline but improveable article. Deletion is so very easy and hides all the problems; curing them takes work. DGG (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there, I just think that certain people (not yourself) are !voting on Kww's RFA on the basis of their philosophy rather than how suitable he is to be an administrator. Personally I'd have been happier if he'd said he would stay away from fiction-basec AfDs, but you can't blame him for not doing so - at least he's being honest. I'd suggest to him to scan AfD log pages early and get a general impression on how they should be closed; if you leave it until there's only a few left on each day's log, the ones left tend to be deletes .... Black Kite 23:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That may well be. There are usually people voting on bad reasons. My experience with the last ones left on a page is that they are not the deletes, but the ones that are so divisive nobody much wants to close them, and face the probable deletion review. I agree, of course, that any new admin should start out closing the easy ones on each side, rather than look for an early opportunity to see how difficult a problem he can solve. DGG (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the DRV ones are the good ones :) But again, probably the ones that new admins shouldn't be closing. Personally I don't have an issue with going to DRV; if the community says I was wrong, then fine - that's what consensus is for. Black Kite 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on that. I expect to get some things wrong, unless I do nothing interesting. But some people get really bothered. And it's not the best way to start out.DGG (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would actually like to bury the hatchet on some of these old issues, and have made strides with others on the 'opposite side of the fence' - I will await an answer. I agree that the deletionists are in the majority, both in admin-hood, and in the cabal ranks too for that matter. This was one of the reasons which prompted me into running for arbcom as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've always found that as curious given Category:Deletionist_Wikipedians (228 editors) vs. Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians (940 editors). The majority stated philosophy seems to be inclusionist, but inclusionists do not comment in or close as many AfDs and what have you. Never been sure what to make of that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Call it AfKeeping, and let's see what happens. DGG (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And I voted for you too, because I recognise that you have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, rather than just spamming "Keep" votes onto AfDs like some members of a certain Wikiproject. (It's a shame for the members of that project that do actually do some good work, like actually fixing articles and finding sources, but a significant number of their members are not helping to be honest - there is at least one new-ish editor who I would quite happily topic-ban from AfD as disruptive.). Mind you, Kww now appears to have annoyed the fringe science crackpots ([15]), so that's the end of that one. Sigh.Black Kite 00:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

Actually, I objected to his views there also, once it had been mentioned. But I'm not going back searching for things to object to, for him or anyone. An admin candidate who hasn't done something at least a little stupid has been playing it safe to a suspicious extent. The question is not has much his views on specific things, but his general temperament and approach. One's own RfAdmin is not the place to bring up unnecessarily multiple major policy changes--it shows a certain lack of common sense. I'm not his enemy, and I hope to vote for him at some future time if he makes it possible. DGG (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Malta articles

• I don't think it's fair for you to close the discussion abruptly. When you say that it is "likely" that there are different degrees of notability, it suggests to me that you did not actually look at any of these articles. Most of these are by the same editor, who took it upon himself to mass produce articles under some notion that every possible combination of relations between two nations would be notable. As an administrator, you need to avoid substituting your personal preferences for those of the participants in a debate. Mandsford (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I didnt close the discussion, I asked that it be divided. Please do renominate them individually. Other group nominations of these have been divided also. I will probably vote to delete most or possibly all of them, though usually I've been not bothering to pile on to the deletes for similar articles.. You speak as if i had been !voting to keep them routinely. I did !vote to keep Malta-Italy just now, on the basis of special circumstances which I specified in my post. I came there responding to a request at WP:ANB], that I thought legitimate. If you want to carry the discussion on there, that would be the place. DGG (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't have much time to review them as I had a talk to give today, but probably most are unnotable, or at least a monoglot anglophone like me won't be able to demonstrate it. Montenegro-Malta is probably not in that boat, and Bosnia-Malta may not be either. Some surprises have come out of left field, too, I was surprised to find Greece and Nepal have significant relations, anyhow. But the precedent would be terrible, bundling them does essentially dash any chance of meaningful discussion. WilyD 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We should probably change the instructions, to more clearly limit bundling to instances where it is obvious the individual instances are equally deletable, or where an article and related articles are most usefully considered together because the discussion will bear equally on them all. I think many such bundles go unchallenged because nobody cares to check the details, and we are deleting among them some articles that could be rescued. The rule at least should be that if anyone objects in good faith to a group nomination, they must be unbundled. DGG (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This would make sense to me, though I am obviously an invested party with a suspect opinion. WilyD 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now see how many of the batch you can save, thus justifying the effort. DGG (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. With so many accounts convinced bilateral relations are inherently nonnotable, it's an uphill struggle. WilyD 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody thinks that. What they think--as do I--is that they will be presumed nonnotable unless there is some substantial non-trivial information DGG (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

Austria-Egypt has been the subject of no less than four conferences with published proceedings. Can you really imagine someone who'd argue to delete that would ever argue keep? WilyD 12:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That someone might judge one article carelessly or even in an inexplicable manner does not mean they are always equally careless or always judge oddly, and in any case almost nobody is completely consistent. There's no regular Wikipedian active at AfD or similar process with whom I do not agree a good deal of the time. There's certainly nobody except some SPAs who consistently do everything totally wrong. Wikipedia process works best when there's wide participation--the sensible people who don't especially care in the issue come and have a look at things. DGG (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re writers on New York Press

You may be interested in this. Unomi (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at New York Press might be more closely related, as discussion should take place in the appropriate venue. Yours, Verbal chat 10:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I restored the paragraph to the NYPost article, leaving a note at its talk p. The mentions in the others article I havent worked on, at least not yet.. Trying to get consensus for restoring the main article will be up to someone else. DGG (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

From Critic11

I don't know how to talk back to you re: The Purple Jar. Can you tell me what to do or is this right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critic11 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

this is fine here. DGG (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

good thinking

With regard to your comments at the Deletion Review for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations, I would like to agree wholeheartedly that it would be incredibly helpful if people looked for references before nominating (and voting) instead of leaving it all to WilyD, who is only one guy. You might wish to examine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand–Ukraine relations to better understand my point of view on these things. Hilary T (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually forget any suggestions of compromise. Given BlueRaven's edit summaries, I'm going create as many articles he doesn't like as possible for as long as possible, and I'm sure if I get banned from bilateral relations I can find something else. Hilary T (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignore them, Are you here to write, or to fight? the best way to prove you're right is to create articles that show that you're right. Essentially everyone here is open to being convinced by that. DGG (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want revenge now. Hilary T (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If you act on that basis, you will soon be blocked from contributing, and very rightly so. You may accept that, but it will also harm the possibility of anyone working on these articles, because such actions will taint them. DGG (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Extinct editors

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

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

Errol Sawyer Article deleted again! HELP!

FleetFlame wanted to help me with puting the article back in the main space but I cannot find it anymore. I did not save it yet, how stupid! What can I do? 1027E (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Dear David, thank you very much for saving the article after deletion and restoring my trust in Wikipedia again. Maybe you can take a last look at it before I do another attempt? 1027E (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain me how I can move the article from my user page to Wikipedia?1027E (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be at Errol Sawyer.DGG (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear David, sorry to bother you again but I read in the discussion page that the article is being evaluated by a board of administrators. How long is this going to take? It still does not come up in my Google search.1027E (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutual_topicban_proposal on ANI

Since both editors do not agree on the proposal between A Nobody and Jack, I am putting it to a community !vote:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mutual_topicban_proposal

Please take the time to make your voice be heard. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality of arXiv screening

I just read your comment elsewhere about the professional screening of articles. Unfortunately it's not completely effective, with some pseudoscience getting through. [16] I only know these articles because the author spammed them here. I tried to read some of the mathematical papers, but the author uses idiosyncratic definitions without ever stating them, always using only vague hand-waving instead and referring to an earlier paper that is no more precise.

This kind of thing may occur because initially everybody with a university address could register automatically, and publications by these old users are not checked. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Registering is not the entire quality control system. There is also both endorsement and moderation, though, as you say, earlier standards were much less rigid. The current requirements are at http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement and http://arXiv.org/help/moderation. The endorsement standard that endorsers are supposed to verify is to "check that the paper is appropriate for the subject area. You should not endorse the author if the author is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the field, or if the work is entirely disconnected with current work in the area." Looking at dates of submission of the papers, i see that his first paper was submitted in its initial version in 1999, before the present endorsement system took place,as you say. Thus, Ironically, he now has sufficient papers in arXiv that he himself can endorse others. The moderation standard is "arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines. Material submitted to arXiv is expected to be of interest, relevance, and value to those disciplines. arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission." The moderators are "volunteers who have been approved by the discipline-level advisory committee and by the arXiv staff." DGG (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

I note your "Very Weak Keep" comment on the AfD for Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I recently added a somewhat lengthy discussion of the bases for my delete position, including my view on the criteria for inclusion of articles on proposed legislation (which as far as I know, is not specifically addressed in any policy or guideline). Based on your thoughtful input that I've seen elsewhere, I would like to have your views on it, regardless of whether it does or does not change your position. After writing it, I'm thinking of rewriting the basic ideas into an essay or guideline for consideration for inclusion in the Wikipedia namespace. TJRC (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

in process; there will be two parts a/the distinction between passed and failed and a little later b/what should be included, which ,to summarize , is every piece of legislation of significant public importance or where there has been significant public debate-- and every attempt noteworthy for legal or historic or social reasons. The very weak in my keep was because I am not convinced of the significance of this rather routine piece of posturing. DGG (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

the speed I just replied on the page is because I had already been thinking about this. DGG (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nova Publishers

I'm writing to you because you've contributed to the Nova Publishers article and written about them outside of WP. Do you know, is it a legit operation? The reason I ask is that I've discovered that they habitually plagiarize Wikipedia articles. They use the article intro both in the preface of the printed book and on their website as an "about this book" blurb. I collected a few examples on User:spiel496/plagiarism. I'd like yell and write letters, but if the company is just a bunch of photocopy machines in Elbonia, then why bother? Spiel496 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

they're legit, though there are some complications. Please email me. You do not have your email enabled. DGG (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's enabled (I hope). Spiel496 (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

="#449900">anshumanist   ]] 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. As an editor I've come to respect in our limited interactions, I doubly appreciate your concerns. Perhaps if you would care to mentor me in any areas in which I would seem to be lacking, I would appreciate that; otherwise, just dropping by to give advice from time to time would be enough to help keep me on the right track. :)

Anyway, I don't know if any of this holds your interest, but if you ever wanted to check out the GA drives on either the D&D project (Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants so far), or the comics project (Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, LGBT themes in comics, Hergé, and Pride & Joy (comics) so far), discussion should be rather easy to find, and join in if you like. Either way, happy editing. :) BOZ (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really good on GA drives for articles on subjects I basically know nothing about except what I read in Wikipedia. I have no personal interest in most of the fiction I defend. I defend it because the attacks on fiction, as Jack M.'s comment a few sections up shows, are a deliberate attempt to reduce coverage of all popular culture. This is destroying one of the two high points of our encyclopedia (the other is computer technology), and a basic dispute over the nature of the encyclopedia. I too want more coverage of other topics, but this does not require destruction of what is already being done well. The approach you are taking is completely right--to improve the quality of the articles, because many people will understandably not defend low-quality articles.

As for adminship, go slow, and work on inconspicuous places first. We all make mistakes, especially at first, and better they be in the less seen regions. Feel free to ask, here or email, but I see this more frequently. DGG (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate you for what you do around here; if more people did it with your level-headed style, a lot of the drama going on could be avoided. I'm acquainted well enough with Jack from past experience to know all too well what his attitudes towards pop culture are. I've noticed there are basically two types of editors who often seek to delete articles on fiction and pop culture. One sees the notability guidelines as a shield, and the other as a sword. The first group is committed first and foremost to quality of the material presented, and want to see the material improved, and when this seems implausable, they want it to be gone. The second group doesn't like the material in the first place, and will look for any means to denigrate and destroy what others have worked for. It's often hard to tell one from the other, but the first group can actually be quite reasonable. The first group can respect that this material, when done well, is worth showing off and attracts people to the encylopedia; the second group is embarrassed that it's covered at all. I've also seen the argument that people working too much on "non-serious" topics means that people don't work enough on "serious" topics, but then don't people work on what they want to do? If I was here to work on articles about politicians, or science, or geography, or animals, or opera, or whatever, then I would be doing so. If people want serious topics to get better coverage and quality, then they need to get people who are interested in working on those subjects interested in Wikipedia. If hundreds of active editors want to work on pop culture stuff and not "serious" topics, then what are you going to get? But anyway, I digress - I wanted to rant during my RfA but left the topic alone since no one asked about it first. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Count me in the "sword" group. I supported you despite your stance on fiction, and as far as I'm concerned you're still dead wrong on it (as is DGG). I'd fight you all the way on it if I hadn't decided that it weren't for the good of my health; I'm now left in the rather unpleasant position of having to watch thin-ice-skating editors like JM do that work, in light of the continual failure of the pro-fiction camp to adequately police itself against its worst elements. I've never understood why it is that pro-fiction editors can't see the bright line between what TVTropes can cover and what we can cover; nor between how Memory Alpha can cover a subject and how we can do it. I am tragically addicted to both sites, and very, very appreciative that they're there for what we can't include. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's just it Chris, why can't we include it? And how is shoddy fiction content a dramatically worse danger than shoddy medical or political content, which has a far greater possible impact on people's views. I hate the hiving off and compartmentalisation of knowledge more than anything. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

But, why fight? :) Life's too short for fighting over things not worth fighting over. BOZ (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

actually, getting a good free comprehensive encyclopedia is worth the fighting. I'm certainly willing to fight if necessary for each of the concepts of good, free, and comprehensive. Free, I think we've gotten there, and I'm not going to quibble about details of licenses; good, everyone here agrees on the concepts of accuracy, sourcing, freedom from promotional material, and fairness--but improving and maintaining this is a continual struggle & always will be, but the only fight is against outsiders who try to subvert these principles; comprehensive--that's the current fight. By comprehensive I mean everything that a moderately educated person with a functional reading command of English could possibly expect to find in something that calls itself an encyclopedia. (not to denigrate the the non-English readers, but all of this holds also for the Wikipedias in their languages). Moderately educated, means the range of beginning high school students, though US college graduates--the place on the scale depending on the topic. The view that we should not cover fiction throughly is as alien to the idea of comprehensive as the view that we should not cover sports thoroughly, or botany, or the Bible, or ancient Greek history. But I don't want to fight with people like Chris, because I'm not all that likely to convince them; better to explain to Wikipedians in general, those here now and those we hope to recruit. Given the inescapable continuing need to struggle for quality, we need to recruit as many good people as possible, no matter what they intend at first to work on. DGG (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've got that right - there are definitely things worth fighting for, and I agree with where're you're coming from - just don't think some things are worth fighting over (as in quibbling, bickering, quarreling, that sort of thing). One could spend the rest of one's life on the WP:FICT talk page... but, why? :) BOZ (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not even on my watchlist, and I usually wait a week or two between visits, because the status of things will be much the same. DGG (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be my point. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't include it because it is (in general) impossible to do so while maintaining the same perspective as the rest of the encyclopedia. I have absolutely no problem with us having an article on Donatello (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) in principle, but if that is to be the case then I expect that article to present the subject from a real-world perspective and not a fictional one. DGG's "everything that a moderately educated person with a functional reading command of English could possibly expect to find in something that calls itself an encyclopedia" only covers real-world material. To do otherwise is to fail our readers, who should be able to expect that any article is presented from a global viewpoint which concentrates on the important real-world aspects of the subject. In practice, it has been shown that this simply doesn't happen by itself in articles which are predominantly fiction-based. For fictional content to flourish it must be possible to present it from a fictional perspective, which is what Memory Alpha allows. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're probably more in the "shield" camp than you think; the "swordies" would prefer not to even have an article on TMNT itself (not the characters, but the whole thing, because it is pop culture), but have to suffer it because it's notable enough that they can't do anything to get rid of it completely. Now, they can pick it apart all they like, but they know they are stuck with some minimal amount of properly sourced coverage, so they know they have to live with that. I'm implying an actual dislike or disdain for the material itself, not just a feeling that it can't be properly covered and all that encyclotalk about sources and POV and OR. At least, that's how it works in the made up world in my mind. ;) BOZ (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I realise that the deletionist boogieman who AfDs articles which are well-sourced just because he thinks there's too much anime on Wikipedia is a much-loved stereotype, but having been on speaking terms with a number of arch-deletionists I can't say that I've ever seen an example of this. It is certainly the case that some deletionists will consider taking an article which has at least potential for improvement to AfD because in its current state it is simply fanboy flypaper which will get worse rather than better if left alone, but this isn't the same as deleting an article just because it's about a fictional character or whatever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish you were right. I will take it as an optimistic prediction for the future. DGG (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations

I made some comments to keep two and delete the rest. Agreed? Bearian (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments re myself on several AfDs

Hi. I replied to one of your comments to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Komandorski; and posted links to it on the other three. You seem to have missed my nom of:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Zilwicki

There is no 'plot' here, really. There certainly is a lot of popular culture that is 'worthy' and appropriate for significant coverage; i.e the notable stuff per the independent reliable sources:

• What's Opera, Doc?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Would you consider archiving most of this page? It's awkward on modest connections.

(and modest processors. Firefox has a charming way of blocking the UI while it's digesting very long pages. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Said what I can there. I suggest dividing not alphabetically, but into specific types of "unusual"; article titles like those will always produce a negative reaction in many people. DGG (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

National Bank of Sudan

Are you the admin that released the National Bank of Sudan article? If so, the article was originally tagged as spam through the error of user Yourname. I changed it over to speedy deletion as a test page because a majority of the National Bank of Sudan article is a copy of Bank of Sudan article with minute changes. --Rent A Troop (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If they are the same bank, as appears to be the case from my searching now, then that's not a case for deletion, but of merging or redirection. JohnCD spotted it and did the merge. I missed it, and incorrectly assumed they were separate banks. If the name is a plausible search term, the thing to do is to simply change the article to a redirect--after determining which is the official name. Checking that, it does seem to be Bank of Sudan. While checking, I noticed an additional name that was used: Central Bank of Sudan, so I made it as a redirect. DGG (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Lists of fictional things

I'm curious. Why should lists of fictional things have a lower bar for inclusion than individual fictional things? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How are we to handle somewhat less than notable subjects? we give them a subarticle. And the next step down: a paragraph on a list. And then: a mention in an article. This goes for fiction and everything else as well. Consider for example the battles and skirmishes in a war: some of them are worth articles by themselves; some paragraphs in a more general article. Some a mention. If you accept this, then it is the same whether the war is real life or fictional.

The reason for this is that it lets us proportion content to importance. Otherwise we have some things that have full articles, and some things with no mention at all. And nothing in between. This is wrong on both sides, and if they are the only alternative, will lead to an argument of arbitrary decision for every one of them. There is an alternative view: that everything that can be individually identified is worth an article, and the only distinction is long or short. There are two critical problems with this: first, the overhead of managing the several hundred million articles that would result, and the artificial importance it would give to what isn't worth it, which for many things in the RW, would amount to promotion and spam. The only other view is that nothing that isn't very important should be mentioned at all--or if mentioned, not explained. That's not an encyclopedia.

This basically makes me not an inclusionist, but a mergist. Inclusionist and exclusionist lead to conflict, because there's no room to compromise. Between compromise and conflict, I know my choice. DGG (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that there may be other ways to cover not-individually-notable subtopics in ways other than lists or individual articles? Have any satisfactory or unsatisfactory alternatives been proposed to you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Certain there are, and that's exactly what I am advocating. I mentioned them above: formal subarticles, or less formally, as paragraphs. But to do this, we need the article in which the subarticles are to be merged. For simple subjects, the main article will do, but beyond it it makes for confusion, especially if the sections are more than single paragraphs.: it's essentially a matter of style. The serious question is how much content they should get. This is what I am basically fighting for. i would support a great many more merges if there were some way of guarding against loss of content. But, as you know, controlling the content of an articles and handling disputes over this is one of the things Wikipedia does not do that well for anything but heavily watched articles. DGG (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a subtopic? What is not a subtopic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I call them sub-articles, by which I mean a named section in an article, with a redirect, and with the redirect included in the appropriate categories. I'm not sure of what to call mention without a named section, and I'm not sure what to do about redirects for them. We can do them, through the use of anchors, but this is not currently a routine technique here--partly because we seem to have no automatic way to mange changes. The question of what deserves what is a matter of degree. DGG (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you expand on what you mean by "it's a matter of degree"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In the case of a character, the more important the character and the more important the work, the greater likelihood of an article. There's usually a clear distinction between principal leading character, secondary named characters, background characters, and un-named ones. How important a work is will always be a matter of judgment, except at the extremes. If it won an Emmy, say, at least some of the principal characters are likely to be worth separate articles, and so on down. At the other end, if it is barely notable as a work, we just need to mention the principal characters in the article, and have no need to even mention the rest. We could draw up a table, but it will always involve a little judgment where to put things, and will also depend asa third factor on the amount of usable material and complexity, keeping in mind that primary sources are sufficient for basic description. How far down to go and for which works can be settled by compromise. If consensus changes either way about how much depth to give to fiction, we can modify the arrangement. Frankly, it seems obvious to me. I am not the one who suggested this--I think MAXEM did. DGG (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does importance matter? Why does the main character of an important series moreso than the main character of a less important series? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Because that's what users are likely to want information on, & we write an encyclopedia for providing information to users. By importance, I mean other things than just popularity, such as historic or artistic importance, though such importance of the show must of course be shown by the usual second references. There is a place for WP:N, about the show. Are you saying that you =would give just as much coverage to an character from an unimportant show, or that you would give just as little to a character from an unimportant one? In either case, it violates NOT INDISCRIMINATE. In the first, we get an encyclopedia oftrivia, in the 2nd we don't get a comprehensive encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not all of my questions were necessarily because I held an opposing position. I appreciate the food for thought. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I understood that from the first. We were cooperating in trying to get a clear statement of the position. DGG (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abdul Makim Khalisadar

Hi, I saw your earlier edit of Abdul Makim Khalisadar. Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Makim Khalisadar ? RomanLady (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC) (unfortunately deleted, though I think there was not really consensus to do so.) DGG (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

well-worded AfD.

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

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

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

AndesEbla

Check out AndesEbla. I have no idea what's going on here. Looks like a text dump with at least 2 copyviolations... and maybe a COI? I have absolutely no idea what's happening here. -WarthogDemon 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm used to people thinking we're facebook; this is someone thinking we're Librarything. Deleted as no encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Page retrieval of List of Master Grade Gundam models

Hi there. May I ask you to retrieve the above article, to be posted at the Gundam Wikia site. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now at User:E Wing/List of Master Grade Gundam models DGG (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just saved a copy of it. You may delete it now. E Wing (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy Family Academy

hi, thanks for the note. I was not the one that suggested a merge. I simply categorized it, cleaned it up a bit, added a few links, etc. I have no vested interest one way or another if it is merged or not! I will leave it to better minds than mine since I am not familiar with the school! Postcard Cathy (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Dumb Question

How do I "join" a project? Like, schools, or alternative education, etc.? I just read the homeschooling page, and saw comments about inviting and recruiting, but no reference to "inviting" onesself. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You go to the page for the project, edit it, and add your name where it says list of members, with the ~~~~ , making whatever comment you like. You can optionally edit your user talk pageto include the userbox: {{User:Diligent Terrier/Userboxes/WikiProject Homeschooling}} or {{User:Burner0718/Userboxes/WikiProject Homeschooling}} DGG (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at William Timmins (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

not much I can say, as i usually avoid American political articles--enough other people already work on them. But I'll take a look. DGG (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Vehicle

I prod ed this again because several months,if not a year, after requesting an RS for a definition, nothing satisfactory has been found. therefore the lede is an unverifiable fantasy . So if we don't even know what the article is about it can become a meaningless bunch of twaddle. Which it is . What do you propose as a next step ? AfD?Greglocock (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose you improve the article. It's your job as much as anyone else's. The lede paragraph does not usually need to be sourced specifically, if it it just summarizes the rest and the rest is sourced, as it seems to be. Given the EPA link as the first external source, there would seem to be as much additional material as one could possibly hope for. DGG (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson

The article was just re-created, so I deleted per G4, of course. You said "primary in May" ... do you know when in May? I'm inclined to salt until the primary, given the general attitude of the voters at the AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

May 19, according to the deleted article. I'd be inclined to wait till it happens again. DGG (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said AfD

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

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

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

Further to the Oo saga

I've given as harsh a "final warning" as I ever give, and was seriously considering blocking, and will endorse an indefblock/ban if this behaviour continues. I hadn't realised just how bad this had become and for how long he'd been doing it; that list is just the marginal cases where a potential case could be made for deletion. – iridescent 23:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

now you;vedone that, I'll check the AfC s for more copyvio. DGG (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on RS queery

Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re

I replied to your comment at WP:DERM:REF. Thanks again for your help. ---kilbad (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice/clarification

Hey there, David. You weighed in on Women Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame earlier this month, but now another editor is suggesting its deletion. I'm still rather new here and unsure how to proceed. I was hoping you might offer your wisdom to the situation. Rytch303 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)rytch303

commented there. 06:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oo7565

If someone goes around prodding Millard Fillmore, Soap, Trout, HMS Dreadnought and The Battle of Bunker Hill, I would warn him or eventually support banning him for disruption, exhausting the patience, etc. But if he prods articles which appear to fail the relevenat notability criteria, which have no references, even after they have been tagged for lack of references or for appearing to fail the notability criteria for many months, I would not support brandishing the banhammer. Especially if a good proportion of the prodded article fail in AFD. There are unreferenced articles about youth sports players, bands, and musicians of little notability. What are some of the really inappropriate ones? Are the inappropriate ones he has Prodded as much as 1/4 of the total? I keep getting vague dire accounts of wrongdoing by Oo7565 without a specific list of egregious ones. Edison (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

look again, is all I can say. i agree he needs education, not a block, since he seems to have stopped; as you seem reluctant to help teach him, I shall. It's not hat he's deliberately picking improper articles to prod, which is vandalism. It's that he's picking articles indiscriminately, which is still disruptive. DGG (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Age of Enlightenment and others

In addition to that page, several times in the past you have reverted my edits to articles which you have never edited before. There does not be appear to be on-wiki communication regarding these articles/edits and I find it unlikely you have them watchlisted as you have never shown interest in them prior to reverting me. Do you review my contributions or do you receive directives off-wiki regarding my edits? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I move around very broadly. Take a look at my contributions to see what I have worked on today--it's a good day to look at, because it's even a little wider than usual. You may have noticed in fact I consider myself pretty much interested in literature & history, & my real period is the late 18th century. Has been ever since I read Diderot in high school.

While your're here, let me advise you against the repeated removal of well sourced material without consensus. I do take a look at people who I recall as having done that, on an occasional basis--lots of editors do this also. DGG (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The scope of your work is irrelevant. Given the many thousands of edits that occur here daily, it's virtually impossible that you just happened to stumble across an edit I made less than two hours after I made it, even if the article is related to your interests. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it's difficult as this isn't the first time we have had this discussion. What specifically brought you to the Age of Enlightenment page to revert my edit? You hint that you happened to reviewing my contributions, but you do not explicitly state such. If you review my contributions periodically, how often and in what detail do you do so? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that good faith is lacking in a policy of "Trust, but Verify"? Bongomatic 04:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I just find it odd that he pops up in the way that he does, and I'd like to know if someone is standing over my shoulder. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DGG's a good editor. Why does it matter if he looked through your edit history, or if he found it through the random page tool, or happened to see it in the RecentChanges list? tedder (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to have comprehended what I've said. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the key things I do here is check logs and contribution histories of people i think might be doing interesting things. There's no schedule. When I do, i look for things I think possibly problematic, or an article or situation that might interest me. When I see multiple reverts on an interesting article, of course I look at them. DGG (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you're wording your statements carefully. If you had never encountered me before, you wouldn't know if I was doing "interesting" things and you wouldn't know to check my contributions, correct? If similar edits were made by an account other than mine, do you think they would draw less attention from you? Does seeing "Doctorfluffy" in a history list raise your suspicion? I don't like feeling that my contributions are getting a sterner look from you simply because they're made by me, and that's exactly the way I feel. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles about medical terms and signs

I posted this over at the medicine portal, but did not get any responses. Therefore, I wanted to know what your thought were on the following?

First, when it comes to articles pertaining to medical terminology or signs, like those found in Category:Dermatologic terminology or Category:Dermatologic signs, which should be included in Wikipedia, and which in Wiktionary? Are there any policies or guidelines I can hang my hat on when suggesting an article to be moved to Wiktionary? Second, of the articles regarding medical terminology or signs that should be in Wikipedia, what should the article consist of? What should the sections be?

Thanks again for your help. ---kilbad (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost every noun in Wiktionary could also make an article in Wikipedia (with exceptions for synonyms, obsolete words, and the like). Look at medical reference books : A medical dictionary gives a brief definition and, usually, the etymology, all in one or two sentences. A medical encyclopedic textbook on the subject gives a discussion of the biological and clinical significance as well, in anywhere from a paragraph on up. Don't think of it as dermatological terminology--think of it as dermatological symptoms, or conditions, or procedures The word is explained in Wiktionary, the thing itself is explained, in context, in Wikipedia. In some cases, where the sign is relatively trivial , and there is very little to say, the encyclopedic content can be included in a more general article. Any current problems here? Picking a potential one, the Fitzpatrick scale, you need to expand the article by giving a/ Its physiological rationale--I know it seems obvious, in a sense, but you still have to say it. b/a reference showing that it is the standard measure or one of them & if there are others, the differences and where they are used., and c/ something about the man. If possible, it helps to write a whole separate article on him if you have information & if he did anything beyond this one measure. You also need to link everything appropriate in the article: the term we use, is "build the web" . d/ It's the custom in many medical texts to give abbreviated references--do not do so here. give the full name as given on the paper, the full article title, in quotes, and the full journal title, in italics, and not just vol. and starting page, but issue and inclusive pagination. Anything since the 50s will be in PubMed--give their number as well. If the article is online, give the link or the doi., Additionally: Comedo is a disambiguation page and needs to be set up as such. Write the article for whitehead. Burrow: you need to actually explain that its due to the tunneling of the exoparasite, and give small picture. There is no need to give large pictures, or aim for effect, just identification. DGG (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your quick and full reply. ---kilbad (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some question about your change of PROD guideline to 7 days.

I personally felt it reasonable, but I have gotten a bit of a complaint of my talk page and there is a bit of one on the PROD talk page as well. Thus, you may want to address those concerns ASAP. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to PROD

I just wanted to leave you a note to let you know that I've undone your changes to the page, as there was no consensus for it. I hope we can continue discussion on the talk page before making changes. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope at least you changed the other templates also. Seemed really really obvious to me. I have probably said all I'm going to say . I think I'll move on to proposing 7 d for deletion review. DGG (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which templates? I did change WP:Deletion policy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

to facilitate things, I reverted them myself. They're Template:PrSpam ‎ Template:Dated transwiki ‎ Template:Dated prod ‎, I'll let you change them back if the decision goes my way--the quick way of finding them is my contribution list. DGG (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Beta Alpha

Library or something society. Thought it might be up your alley so to speak. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

this one is a problem--it's not the main group, but one limited to the very small number of undergraduate only librarianship programs, with one active chapter only. This makes it of historical importance only, & I need to check the sources to see it it was significant in he past. The main group is Beta phi mu, which does have an article. DGG (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wealthy fictional characters-- opinion?

List of wealthy fictional characters looks hopeless to me—what do you think? Bongomatic 07:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

add references with quotations from the works, and it wont look so hopeless at all. DGG (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I added an item (no references), but someone else nominated it for deletion— have to say, that upon further reflection, I think it has to go (despite its cuteness). Please add your views at the AfD. Bongomatic 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, its not a good job, but the topic is a possible one. Some day, if I am never needed at afd, and people accept a compromise at WP:FICT, .... DGG (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Boylestad

I saw your recent comment at the user's talk page. I don't know what "principles" Wikipedia is trying to uphold here by not allowing deletion. The arguments advanced in favor of Boylestad's notability advanced at the AFD were of the form-without-function type. Formal wp:prof-type criteria establishing "notability" should not be used a trump card to force retention of an article when it is not possible, functionally, to write an actual encyclopedia article. With zero substantial, independent sources about Boylestad, there can be no real encyclopedia article about him. But moreover in this case the subject requested deletion. That should end the argument right there. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally people request deletion if they don't like the article, or can't get it to read the way they want. The result will be that for bio, Wikipedia will contain the most famous people, and only others if the articles are tailor made to their specifications, and praise them enough. Subjects of articles have repeatedly asked for essentially that, though they don't quite phrase it that way. At that point, nobody could trust the completeness and accuracy of what we say, the distrust will extend to other subjects also, and we've become a irresponsible and worthless reference. We have enough problems maintaining quality even with a firm rule about NPOV. Requests such as this sometimes happens with academics after someone questions their importance in a discussion--they understandably don't like the often ill-informed criticism, and want to conceal the entire thing, article and all. But nobody can publish under their own name and expect privacy about their work, before or after the advent of the internet. What we do hold to is DONOHARM--we will not include someone marginal if the material is minor incidents to their discredit, or include an article at all if such is the only material and not very widely publicized already or about a public figure. I consider this a very narrow exception, and we need to watch that it does not spread. Our own reputation is based on our objectivity. I don't consider his notability borderline--he wrote several leading textbooks in his subject, and therefore clearly meets the relevant standard. That they're important is proven by the publication records, and the TES article. And for good measure this is the internet, and complaints will be permanently findable also. We have a formal private system for this, and I additionally offered private discussion on his talk page, but you've chosen to do this instead. If you want to help him, it's not the way. (Yes, we do have provisions for permanently removing actual libel and truly private information wherever it appears on Wikipedia, and I use them when appropriate; this is nowhere near the level.) But it isn't up to me personally. I gave my opinion--the community decides. So far it has decided not to accede to such requests. I hope it will always maintain that position. DGG (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • I brought my concerns here because you are an influential admin and I hoped to sway your viewpoint on the issue of BLP's in general, not just Boylestad's. The community to some extent follows your views.

      I am sorry that, substantively, you haven't addressed my argument at all, merely repeating that he's "notable" because he satisfies some formal criterion relating to his publication record. If you like, you may want to read my earlier comment again and respond to the actual concerns that I raised--they were about sources or the lack thereof, and using "notability" as a trump card to keep an article even when no sources are available to write an actual encyclopedia article. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Deandre Brunston AfD

I was wondering if you could clarify your post on the discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Deandre Brunston. The current "discussion" seems to be mostly people with differences of opinion "talking past" each other. I think it would be helpful to read the whole discussion and clarify exactly how/where we disagree so we can actually reach a consensus. This AfD seems to be headed down the "no consensus" path right now, which I always like to avoid! Thanks! Cazort (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

commented there. The proper level of inclusion for material of this sort is a matter of judgment. . DGG (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

empower Technologies

Hi DGG,

I just realized that the article I have created was deleted. The name of my article is Empower Technologies. The reason is G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.empowertechnologies.com/downloads/Empower_corp_bro_0902.pdf. I am actually the owner of the text in the "Empower_corp_bro_0902.pdf". I am willing to allow Wikipedia to use the text and don't mind people editing it. Is there any way you can restore the article please?

Thanks, Luikk (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

please see our FAQ about businesses, other organisations, and articles like this. You may license it according to the formalities there, but I do not see that you should do so, because the material is presently not really usable as an encyclopedia article, as is almost always the case for material primarily intended for publicity. The material needs to be written from scratch as an encyclopedia article. The company also needs to be shown as notable ,according to WP:ORG . this essentially requires multiple references providing substantial coverage from third party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Independent published product reviews do nicely. Routine listings of your partnerships or stock sales do not. I doubt the award for a media chair will be considered significant, however nice it may be. Given that the company seems not to be traded on any major exchange and has a capitalization of about $20 million, and that your latest financial statement says " The continuing operations of the Company are dependent upon its ability to continue to raise adequate financing and to commence profitable operations in the future. " (from http://www.empowertechnologies.com/pdf/finance/Empower_2008_Q3_MD&A.pdf ), I am not the least sure that you will be able to show this. But if you write a sourced article, the community will judge. DGG (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Janie Quinn

Hi DGG, I am relative new to WP and would appreciate your help. I know a famous person, Janie Quinn who has revolutionized modern milling by developing the first commercial line of sprouted flour, among other things. I received permission to create a living person wiki page where I sourced all the information I could find about her. I just was in here checking only to find that her page had been deleted by you. Would you please be so kind as to give me some direction on how I make this page acceptable? Thank you. Jaaq (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The article can be restored easily enough, & I have done so, but I do not think it will last in its present form. It was deleted only via the WP:PROD mechanism, where someone proposes a possible deletion & if nobody objects & the deletion makes sense to an administrator, it gets deleted. Such deletions can be stopped at any time before the 5 or 7 day period if even the author objects, and can usually be automatically restored afterward. However, if the deletion is stopped, or the article restored, it can still be nominated for the regular deletion process, WP:AFD, where there will be a community discussion of it, and the consensus of those at the discussion decides. There are 2 problems: it is not clear she is important, and also the article is promotional. what is meant is explained in our FAQ about businesses, other organisations, and articles like this. (Which also talks about conflict of Interest). Basically, about importance, this needs to be shown by references providing substantial coverage from third party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. The references here are not from such sources--they need to be newspaper or magazine articles or the like about her. The lackawanna College page is usable, but it still is a little too much of a press release. Nothing else there is. Listings of the books on Amazon or reviews there don't count--they need to be published reviews. If you can find them in well known national publications and give the references, the article might possibly stand. Otherwise, based on my experience, I strongly doubt it. As for promotional language, the article must describe her career, which is not the same thing as praise her accomplishments. The language must be neutral and descriptive, like a reference book. I've trimmed it a little for the purpose. Either I or someone else will undoubtedly list the article for deletion in a few days, if you haven't added good references. There will be a notice on the article, giving a link for where to defend it. I advise you to add the material very quickly. If you cannot find them, the best course is to yourself ask for deletion, by placing a {{db-author}} tag at the top of the article. DGG (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy DGG's Day!

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

double-monarchy

Hello DDG.Thanks for your help and reply on my page and thanks for fixing it up.Thank you Again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not fixed yet. First, The Double-Monarchy of England and France still needs to have specific statement ascribed to their sources, and material taken from other sources, even Public Domain ones like the old EB, quoted exactly. DGG (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solstice (film)

I can certainly understand your removing on the prod to Solstice (film), but I am entirely baffled as to why it was prodded in the first place.. Much less how someone could send it to AfD. I easily found dozens of news articles and reviews. I have "rescued" other articles that had far less and were more difficult to source. This one was so easy. Was WP:BEFORE even used? I invite you to take a look at my rescue. Any tweaks you think still needed? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

commented at the afd. DGG (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fasihi and User:Fasihi

I see you declined the speedy delete and then prod but I would like to ask how you see the article as being borderline? If you see User_talk:Fasihi#March_2009 it the WP:COI user was already told how to improve the article from not being delete. I do not see anything in the article that is a calm of notablitly. Just my thoughts. I also replied to your rash comment on my talk page. 16x9 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

. You have been blaming other editors for removing speedy tags, but "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. " Any editor. The next step when you disagree is AfD. DGG (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What about this topic? 16x9 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You still don't understand. If you disagree with removal of a speedy tag, use AfD, not my talk page. But you might want to check WP:BEFORE first, and try to improve the article. DGG (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

okay well that is not what other editors and admins have said... "talk to the declining admin". 16x9 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

it wasn't I who declined the speedy, but another user. I just removed it when you erroneously put it back. Any user can decline a speedy, except the creator. Unless that user is being disruptive, it's not my concern why he removed it. But if you would like a plausible rationale, it asserts being a long-standing company engaged in the production of a major product. It doesnt have to prove it to escape speedy. If any user except the author thinks it's plausible, it escapes speedy. it does have to prove it to pass AfD. If nothing better is found I will probably !vote to delete it when it goes there, but the author deserves a chance to find such things as product reviews in published sources. DGG (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing [17]? 16x9 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You still do not understand. If ANY editor in good standing except the author thinks the speedy tag should be removed, it defeats the speedy. I might not have chosen to remove the tag. But if anyone else does so, as long as it isn't the author, that removal holds no matter what I think of the article. Do not replace speedy tags when good-faith editors who are not the authors remove them, unless you discover copyvio. Anyone may do this, and you do not have the right to put it back, and neither does an admin, unless they judge the person removing it is themselves being disruptive. Had I not removed your reinserted tag, I would not have been doing what I am required to, which is to enforce the rules. We have a rule against doing what you did, though I assumed you didn't realize it. DGG (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I understand what you are saying about this edit [18] which I did not clearly at the time understand was bad, I would not call it vandalism btw. BUT now I am talking about the article Fasihi which you did decline (which you have the right to) and I DID NOT re-add ... I am just wondering why. I do not disagree with your prod I was just wondering. 16x9 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional trios

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional trios

Since you commented on the talk page (after removing the PROD), I thought you should know that it's now been nominated. - jc37 02:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. What's wrong with having 6? DGG (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Miller (chairman)

FYI, since you were in the closed AfD two months ago. Ikip (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

apparently nominated on the basis of an unref tag being present, though the references were there nonetheless--the ed. who added them forgot to remove the unref. tag. DGG (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron

Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)