User talk:DGG

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

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

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

ECRI Institute

Thanks so much for getting to us, DGG! I really appreciate it.June 3, 2009 CK~~

---

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

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

---

User:DGG/LG

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

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

magazines...and speedy

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

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

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

Noticeboards, noticeboards, noticeboards!

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Deletion reform study group

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

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)

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 [1]. 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 [2] 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Libraries & the Cultural Record

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

Eleazar

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

Clickety click

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

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

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

mediawikiblacklist

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

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

Wikipedia Students' Guide

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

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)

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)

Extinct editors

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

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

well-worded AfD.

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

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

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

Well said AfD

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

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

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

Happy DGG's Day!

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

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

Edwin Osgood Grover

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

There's enough to tell. The NYT isnt substantial, 51 words, butt he very fact they gave it an article at all is significant. That he then published a long essay in the NYT Bk review is significant. The LA Times article is a signif ref. also. But the most useful general approach is something fairly new: WorldCat identities; best technique is to find a book by him in the regular WorldCat, then click on the author's name.: [3]. Significant author & lecturer. Meets WP:BIO. DGG (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

from a recent deletion review: how to close XfDs

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

Sources about journalists

Hi DGG

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Re: Onyx Pharmaceuticals

Hi DGG,

Thank you so much for the revisions and edits of the Onyx Pharmaceuticals page! I really appreciate you taking the time to help me out with article. I removed the dead links on analyst coverage and instead linked to Onyx's Yahoo!Finance Analyst Coverage page. In addition, I added Onyx's Hoover's profile page under notability.

When you have a chance to look over again, can you let me know if it looks like it is ready to be posted?

Thanks again for your help! - EG
EGagnon7224 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

you still need to write the basic description of the company. and insert the references for it, and add the appropriate infobox. Please learn how to do it yourself. See our |guide to writing Wikipedia articles and, for further details, the appropriate chapters of [4] , How Wikipedia Works by Phoebe Ayers, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates (also available in print). Factors that count towards notability for a company include gross revenue, number of employees, and date of establishment.--these are expected as part of an article. Get the info, and link to Hoovers etc as the source, I touched up the product part. For the scientific references, you need to find the p. numbers for Cancer Research, and the PMIDs for all three articles. The AP and DJ articles need web links. And do what I said for establishing stable links to changeable pages. Then, make the links to Wikipedia articles for the various enzymes and medical conditions. Yes, I could do all this for you. But it's your article. DGG (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pirate ships

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

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

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

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

from an afd

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

Notability guideline for News Organizations/Publications

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

Thank you

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

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

Historical notability

". Fifth century people are notable per se just by having their names remembered fourteen centuries later. Even if their actual record is scanty, and you can sum up all that's knowable about them in a single paragraph, print encyclopedias brim with stubs of exactly this type. - " [5]. good comment by Smerdis of Tlön, for reuse as needed. DGG (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

merge/move

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

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

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

American Engineering Group

Dear Sir,

One of my article about American Engineering Group company is deleted a little while ago. Can you please give me suggestions on how I can make the article more suitable for wikipedia. Please respond.

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two problems, first the article gives nothing to indicate thatt he company is notable. The standards from this are at WP:CORP. Basically, you need to show that you have references providing substantial coverage about the company from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. You need to show that you are recognized as a leader in the field. Typically, independent substantial reviews of products in professional magazines will help; routine announcements of new products or financial results or executive appointments will not. Having army contracts by itself is not enough--if they are for major products that have been discussed, that might help. Some of your products for them seem the sort that might well have been discussed in news reports if you are a major supplier.

The second problem is the promotional nature of the article: it is mainly a list of products. That belongs on your website, not in an encyclopedia. the basic description of the company also is essentially pr material, with more adjectives than specifics. Figures for turnover and employee numbers help, if they are substantial--they need to be sourced, however & most financial results will not be easily available, since you re not a public company.

I notice also that you have put information about your fuel cells in the article on Proton exchange membrane fuel cell. Thjisneeds to be sourced as well, to third party sources, to show that its significant.

A good guide to what is needed is our FAQ about businesses, & other organisations. DGG (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

Please go through these links and see if they could serve as possible references. Our Company is also listed in design magazines for various products. http://www.governmentcontractswon.com/department/defense/american-engineering-group-ll-114164234.asp?yr=06 http://www.rubberdivision.org/expos/mini/techprogram.htm http://www.thecityofakron.com/engineering/ http://rubber.org/expos/exhibitors.pdf http://www.edmtodaymagazine.com/Job%20Shop%20Directory.html http://www.americantire.us/Sponsorship/ATC-Sponsors-ITEC-2008.pdf

Please suggest if there is any possibility of getting listed in Wiki. I really appreciate your help.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

these are listings. They list that one of your people spoke at a conference, or that you have a contracts. They do not provide any indication that you are important. The one financial figure listed available to me was a very small contract for $40,000. What is needed is that other people publish substantial information about you. if the material in the design magazines is just a list of supplier's, its irrelevant also. If its a discussion of the company or one of its products, then it's relevant. I see from your web site "* 2007 SAE tech award for a unique fuel cell sealing concept featuring the Nanocomposite Double-lip seal.' * 2008 SAE tech award for the Carbon fiber Elastomer Composite Bipolar plate for PEM Fuel Cells."; such awards can be proof of notability, depending on the nature of the award; they might show that the prize committee of a major professional association thought you notable. That's the sort of stuff that belongs in the article (and, if I may give you the advice, more prominently on your web site; were I looking for a fabricator, that's the sort of thing I'd hope to see). There must have been something published in the trade press at the time. Find it. Some of your products are such that they might receive formal product reviews; some of your military products might have been written about in general news reports. That's the sort of material needed also. We also need some information about the business size: employees, gross sales, DGG (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi David,

Attached file contains some of the magazines over where American Engineering Group (AEG) LLC's products are published. Please see if this could meet what you are looking for. Please let me know your suggestions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/AEG_Published_Articles.pdf

SAE tech Award 2008: http://www.engineering-group.com/AEGCurrentNews/News/download/download.php?id=11

Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi David,

I am waiting for your suggestions and comments.

Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham70 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Levi's article

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

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

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

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

Lordship Lane, Haringey

As it was yourself I had a huge argument with about the notability of roads two years ago, can I ask for your opinion of what should be done with Lordship Lane, Haringey? Despite the considerable amount of work that's obviously gone into it, it seems to me to be a patently unviable article. While I know from experience that it is possible to write a valid article on a relatively insignificant road, this really doesn't seem appropriate; the road in question is just a short named section of the longer A109 road, but merging this into the existing stub on the longer road would grossly unbalance it. There are only four notable (by WP standards) institutions on the road (Bruce Castle, Broadwater Farm, Noel Park and Wood Green Animal Shelter), on three of which I wrote the articles, so I'm probably too involved to make any significant pruning or AFD nomination without it being instantly challenged.

Do you have any thoughts on this one? It's a sensitive one; despite it's virtual invisibility, it's obviously someone's pet project about which they feel very protective, and when User:Mattisse tagged it for cleanup in the past they responded quite defensively, so it seems quite likely that any deletion or massive pruning would cause the author to leave in disgust. (I'd be fuming if someone deleted a 50kb article I'd been working on for two years!) Do you think it's better to turn a blind eye to this one, or can you think of any obvious way to rescue it which doesn't involve slash-and-burn removal? – iridescent 15:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

fascinating implications in a variety of directions. beautiful though the article is, it needs some basic improvements, like saying which district of Haringey, so I can find it on a modern map (finally did). I think it can be perhaps regarded as an article on a neighborhood, though I am still trying to figure out if it is a significant commercial street. If it is, that justifies it, though obviously not in such detail. That it's part of a major road also doesn't detract--most highways when they go through towns are renamed for that portion Possible combination article: Streets in Haringey? What I want to do right now is to fix up my own neighborhood's article, Boerum Hill, now that I seethe possibilities--it needs work--somewhere along the line, it was missed that most of it is a registered historic district. The availability of Google Street views has some interesting possibilities. For London, I understand there is also [6], though it does have this particular street yet.'

the fascination implications are that now we could do this level of detail anywhere in at least the US and the UK, and I suppose many other countries. Though the US does not have the VCH and the Ordnance Survey, it does have the Sanborn maps with their almost year to year revisions. There's no PD source for them all, though there is for NYC about about 5 year intervals. Then, the question is , why ought we not? Not what in the existing rules says we shouldn't for WP:LOCAL takes care of that, but what we should ideally do. The amount of available detail was not fully comprehended when Wp was founded, and each year i see new things that would make much more possible that anyone would have guess, visionaries though they thought they were. the main problem is that if we did coverage would be very irregular--but so it is anyway. Of course, there's Wikia. Is there a suitable project? If not, should we start one? DGG (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding whether it's a notable street, if one uses WP:50k as a general guideline I'd say it's right on the borderline. It's certainly a relatively old street – it's the yellow one running east-west on this map from 1619 marked "Berry Lane", but doesn't seem to have had (or to have) much significance. It runs east-west between two of the major north-south arteries into London Green Lanes and Ermine Street, but doesn't have any particular commercial significance; the big commercial developments are on the north-south roads. I'd say the four places I mention above ([[Noel Park, Wood Green Animal Shelter, Broadwater Farm, Bruce Castle) are the only points of interest (there are also two court buildings which one could probably wring a stub out of, but neither is architecturally distinguished). Personally I think it warrants the level of detail I gave to the individual named sections of A1 road – a comparator I regularly use for "relatively non-notable part of a notable longer highway" articles – but as I said above, this would involve a massive slash-and-burn operation. (The even marginally notable buildings could be kept, but the "Numbers 467 to 483 - Sila Ocakbasi Restaurant, Lordship Lane Internet Cafe, Cross Chemist, Bushey Car Spares, Flower Creations (Florist), Zeming Chinese Takeaway, Posh Pets (Pet Supplies & Dog Grooming Studio), Sinan Kuafor (Ladies Hair Salon)" phone-book style listings would still have to go.

As you know, we have and always will have a problem, in that we're handling 2 million plus articles with rules drawn up for a project with a few thousand articles. My general thinking is still, two years on, the opinion that was forged in the flare-up of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Road and eventually led to the merge-and-redirect into A215 road; that stand-alone articles on marginal-notability topics make the project unmaintainable, and work better as subsections of larger articles in which the assorted sections provide context for each other – and that, since very few people read these articles and those that do are likely to want a lot of detail, the normal arguments against very long articles don't apply. This "enhanced list" approach would, IMO, work as well for any marginal-notability field – discographies of unsuccessful bands, the obscure cricketers who will never expand beyond three line stubs etc – but any attempt to put it into place has (ahem) caused controversy in the past – see the talkpage of Railway stations in Cromer for all the arguments laid out in full. 10,000 active users makes for a lot of inertia.

At some point (probably not until I'm done with the current series on bridges) I might try doing a "massive merge" in one particular topic. Even if it gets reverted, it might at least prompt a debate on how we're going to handle the flood of data we're currently being bombarded with in a more nuanced way than "keep"/"delete". It's a shame WikiProject Integration and Association of Mergist Wikipedians have effectively died, as this kind of initiative is something that's really needed now more than ever. – iridescent 16:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lessie Wei

Yo, is there chance that the article you left on this AfD was supposed to be for another AfD? I may be totally off, just checking. OlYeller^Talktome 15:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

oops. As I have been saying, there are too many noms for episodes & its hard to keep track. I've put it where it goes. Thanks.DGG (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ya, it seems like there's a big toss up over episodes right now. I wish some conclusion could be reached at an inclusion guideline for notability. I feel like half the AfDs out there are for episodes. OlYeller^Talktome 15:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The other half of the AfDs are bilateral relations, and again there's various compromises that those placing the afds prefer not to even consider. There are several good compromise solutions for both, and in each case the large number of afds up there now seems designed to prevent any compromise. . Most mass nominations like this are in my opinion attempts at forcing one's own way, because of the difficulty of responding adequately. . DGG (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Law enforcement stubs

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

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

Law enforcement in ..

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

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

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

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

Pwn

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

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

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

Re your note

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

Shameless theft

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

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

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

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

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

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

request for advice

Dear DGG, I would appreciate your advice regarding the handling of an edit war continued by an anonymous user in the article sipgate. The user continues to add/revert material that is unmistakenly against WP policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Would you please review this? The article (about a company) itself has problems with notability in fact. Kbrose (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, I'll deal with it. It could even have been called to admin attention earlier. DGG (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you also have time to look at PimpMyNumber. Primary author appears as insider (company IP infrastructure uses same DNS names as author), refuses to provide secondary sources to establish notability, and uses same IP network as our anonymous war editor, coincidence? Problems seems to be notability and COI. Thanks. Kbrose (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked, but it appears NPOV so far; I'll keep watching. DGG (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug Coupon

Could you take another look at this one? It was redirected once to coupon by another editor before the user drugzoo added everything back to the article including its one and only reference drugzoo.com at which time I tagged it as promotional only. If nothing else it is a gigantic coatrack on which to hang the link to his or her website. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

I removed that inappropriate link first thing. It may have been planned as promotional but there is the makings of an article there. DGG (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking a look at it in a timely manner. Wperdue (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Kudos, comment & question

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

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

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

Clarify...

EC at the MfD? Send diff? I'll check. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Found it. Go ahead and switch our comments, since we were both responding to Dc. Keep yours indented and outdent mine. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding ECRI Institue, I have listed credible third party references and truly do not know why this keeps getting deleted - can you be more specific as to sections, words, etc.?

CarolKocherecri (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

the only references you have from outside the institute are [7],which does not mention it, and [8] which in a general article contains a quote from someone at the institute. But the article is being deleted as promotional: 3 different admins have now agreed. Most of the article talks about how it all the vice presidents, and the locations of the various buildings. If you can find and post here one reference providing substantial coverage from 3rd party published reliable sources but not press releases, or material derived from press releases, that talks about the work of the institute, I will restore the article and rewrite it for you so it is not promotional. It will take extensive rewriting, not normal editing, and I do not want to do it if it has no chance of being notable. DGG (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC Invitation

Within the past month or so, you appear to have commented on at least one AN/I, RS/N, or BLP/N thread involving the use of the term "Saint Pancake" in the Rachel Corrie article. As of May 24th, 2009, an RfC has been open at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Request_for_Comments_on_the_inclusion_of_Saint_Pancake for over a week. As editors who have previously commented on at least one aspect of the dispute, your further participation is welcome and encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

ECRI

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

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

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

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

Re: Notices

Don't worry, the current notices, and the planned ones, concern the development of existing outlines. For example, notices of work that needs to be done to them, and notices to recruit editors to help out on them.

The Transhumanist    01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Another related thread has popped up at WP:VPR#OoK's expediency. --TT   04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

seems under control. DGG (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Southbeach Notation

Hi, Thank you for your advice re writing style and use of citations for the Southbeach Notation article, which now has a 'this looks like a news release' tag on it at the moment. I have added a lot more detail, further references, and comparisons to other notations to illustrate the notable differences. Can you confirm if this is now in an appropriate state to have these tags removed? Or is there further work required? Your advice is much appreciated. Mbonline (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

well, 1/you overdid the detail a little. 2/the first paragraph is unclear: what is "situation improvement" ? I don't think it's an English phrase 2a/ much of the rest is unclear also, such as "power of expression is derived from the interpretation of the models made by the people using it." Does it perhaps mean that it's flexible to accommodate different concepts? And what is "perspective alignment in individuals" ? I think I know what you may have in mind, but I'd have to guess. 3/most of the semantics section seems standard concepts, not particular to this scheme 3a/ Ditto for the sections on ".1 Multi-perspective Situational Modelling" and especially "Structured brainstorming" 4./The "Example is a tutorial, and not appropriate content 5/and most important, I continue to see no references at all to show that anyone except the people who developed it think it important. DGG (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will attempt to address these points. Regarding 5/, there are references to articles published in bptrends and trizjournal, which are both respected publications. Do these not count as independent authorities saying this is important? If not, what kind of references do you think are necessary? Mbonline (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:email

I have replied to your e-mail with an explanation. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

DGG,

I have an enormous amount of respect for you and have no wish to damage your reputation both personally or as a Wikipedian. I hope you can take my initial response ("Are you having a laugh") as a reaction to you making (IMO) an astonishing mistake rather than perceived incompetence, inexperience or ignorance. Perhaps I misunderstood what you thought the book could be cited for, or perhaps you were "voting" to keep a list that wasn't actually quite the same as the one I believed I was sending to AfD. Indeed, many of the keep "votes" seem to be for a "list of rare diseases", which is quite a different thing. I am genuinely sorry if my response was hurtful. Colin°^Talk 21:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

no problem. I may not have been clear enough in the first place. DGG (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep Hope alive!

Hey David. I was wondering if you would be willing to reconsider your delete vote in the case of Connie Bea Hope? At the worst I think a merge (which I have no inclination to support) to the tv station WKRG would seem a better route. I've been finding more sources and putting more pieces of the puzzle together as far as the show and its history go. For example I'm working on a source that includes the show as an early favorite in the channel's history. I think this biography is well worth including, even though it's notability is regional rather than national or international. Thanks for your kind consideration. Oh and I'm working on an article on the program itself now too Woman's World (tv) so we'll see what comes of that. Perhaps a merger may be in order down the road. But the show has had notable guests, so I'm going to see what comes of it. And I also found a source with an archival tape of the show. Thanks for your kind consideration. How was the new Star Trek movie? Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

my opinion is the same, but I am not the arbiter of what gets into WP. However, I think you'd really be stretching it to try two articles. If the CBH one is kept, merge the show in; if it isnt, merge her into the show. DGG (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Comment

Alright, thanks for the heads up, and I agree with your change.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cozzen Publications - A7?

I'd personally take "published numerous books globally" as an assertion of importance. Just my 0.02$ though :) --MLauba (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

every publisher does. It means in their case that if you pay extra, they give it at ISBN. Most vanity publishers do it as part of the basic package. DGG (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz

Since you commented in the Great Clay Belt deletion review, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Maury Markowitz and redirect deletions. Feel free to ignore or remove this if you're not. --NE2 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

seems to have been taken care of adequately. Obviously further watching is in order, but I can trust you to do that. DGG (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that you need it...

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

ECRI Institute

DGG - as requested, below are more substantial references for you based on the criteria you gave me -- thanks for that. These include a book, peer review/medical journals and newspapter articles. Should I try to put the page up again, or do you want to rewrite using the below - please let me know if there is anything else I need to do.

Rettig, Richard A, et al. (2007). False Hope: Bone Marrow Transplantation for Breast Cancer, 192-195, 204; Oxford University Press, New York, NY, ISBN-13:978-0-19-518776-2.

Stephenson, Joan, PhD, (1995). “Medical Technology Watchdog Plays Unique Role in Quality Assessment”, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 274, No. 13.

Noble, Meridith, MS, et al. (February, 2008). “Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety”. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Volume 35, No.2.

Treadwell, Jonathan R., PhD, et al. (October, 2006). “A System for Rating the Stability and Strength of Medical Evidence”, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

Treadwell, Jonathan R., PhD, Fang Sun, MD, PhD, and Karen Schoelles, MD, SM (November, 2008). “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Bariatric Surgery for Pediatric Obesity”, Annals of Surgery, Volume 248, No. 5.

Landro, Laura. “For Patients, a List of Hospital Hazards”, The Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2008, page D2, Retrieved May 26, 2009.

Smith, Virginia A., Inquirer Staff Writer, “Confronting Bulimia”, The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 27, 2006, FEATURES MAGAZINE, page E01.

CKKocherecri (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In practice, it would help to have links. But I am almost certain that most of them are articles merely mentioning the center , or studies where the center played a role, not about the center. The most likely is the JAMA article, & I'll check DGG (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Drv for List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

An AfD for this article, which you participated in, was recently closed as "no consensus." I have request a deletion review here [9].Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

List of digital library projects

This is just a quick note that the a page you've commented on before List of digital library projects is undergoing discussion over a rewrite at Talk:List_of_digital_library_projects. The rewrite is at [10] Stuartyeates (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Heads Up

You are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30 68.146.162.11 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy is bitting a newby with a huge assumption of bad faith

I am bring this to your attention as an administrator. DreamGuy's comments to User:Granite thump are, in my opinion, way out of line in his final comments here. For his past acts DreamGuy has been placed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and (it says) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked. I personally think he has made a huge assumption of bad faith against User:Granite thump, but I am not an administrator. I trust your judgment. Varbas (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am far too much involved with DG to get involved in something like this as an administrator. Perhaps though I can offer you the advice, that some challenged articles are worth defending, and some are not. And of those worth defending, only some are worth getting really involved in. If you want to make a stand, pick a good place for it. DGG (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_DreamGuy_2 - See this request for clarification regarding DreamGuy   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Wisne (2nd nomination)

Since you are aware of this deletion discussion, asking you for advice about this AfD won't be perceived as canvassing. Do you think Andy Wisne can be saved? The subject passes WP:GNG, but the voters are all voting delete because of the COI and neutrality issues. I'm willing to rewrite this article, but will it be futile? Cunard (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I do not think he's notable. I do not think the college career is important enough; I think the unfortunate accident may make him a subject of temporary newspaper interest, but no more. The movie career hasn't started yet. What else is there? For those who think all division IA players notable, he's notable as that, & that could be emphasized. I think the point is not clear. He probably would not have had a major trophy had he played the season, nor was Notre Dame the champion that year. The question is really one's personal sympathy for him--he might have had it, but as you say, the excesses there backfired. This article shows the problem of the GNG: it does not really settle anything, because one then argues about significant coverage, and whether it was tabloid type human relations only. Try to argue for a non-consensus on the ground of the contamination of the discussion by pathos. DGG (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree that he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER, but I disagree that the sources are tabloid-like — they are neutrally-written and are from credible newspapers, including the LA Times. Anyway, the AfD looks like it's going to be closed as no consensus. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The longer I'm here, themore I look for significance over human interest. DGG (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

ECRI again

ECRI Institute is a research institute that is very well-respected in the medical community, known for its evidenced-based research on healthcare, health devices and protocols, and patient safety issues. The content on the journal articles are primarily ECRI research (not mere mention.)

Here is the link to our research study in the BMC journal:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/6/52

again you do not understand. What is needed is articles not where you make studies, but where some other group discusses your importance. DGG (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check again - False Hope book is good one to check. I can attached an assortment of newspaper articles, but your email doesn't seem to be set up for attachments? CKKocherecri (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC) .Email me from here, and I will reply from my regular account. You list a few pp. in the book. copies of them, perhaps? DGG (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I will email. I am being pressured to get the page up and as I am new in this job, I don't want to disappoint. We were initially very excited to join WIkipedia, but it's becoming more complicated than we thought. Here is a link:

https://www.ecri.org/Press/Pages/In_The_News.aspx

to many, many third party news articles about us (Not written by us, but by Phila Inquirer, Wall Street Journal). If I can have our librarian scan pages from the False Hope book, I will. In the meantime, I am emailing you some copies of articles where our doctors are quoted and interviewed, or where some of our break through research is highlighted, particularly in bulimia and hospital fire safety. I'll try to repost the entry with some of these references (before I get fired.!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocherecri (talk • contribs) 16:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

tell them that they have no business pressuring you, because it is not under your control. We are not an advertising medium where the end result depend upon your diligence. What you have said about getting paid on the basis of your success in getting the article in wikipedia is a clear indication that you ought not to have written the article in the first place--see WP:Conflict of Interest Anyone paid to put entries in Wikipedia who is paid by results is inevitably going to be disappointed; we almost always remove such articles. Nor do organizations "join" wikipedia; rather, individuals edit on topics that interest them. Whether or not you have a page, and what it says, does not depend upon you, but upon the community. Once I get the material, and if I think it will support an article, I will do what I can, because I think you might well be notable--but that won't help unless there are sources to show it according to our rules, because I am not the one to decide if the article gets kept, nor is anything kept because someone thinks it is notable. I will work on it in a week or two, not immediately; I have my own priorities. I don't get paid for this, you know--none of us do. I am willing to write the article from scratch, nonetheless, because I think it will help the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry, DGG - I was kidding about the being fired - humor doesn't transfer well online. We absolutely are not hoping to be on Wikipedia for business purposes, but we truly believe that we are notable and interesting, and worth folks knowing about. You certainly seem to have a lot to handle. I went back to the content and compared to like organizations (AHRQ and Advisory Board Company.]

I have rewritten the article and removed promotional copy, added the proper references as per directions for citations in Wiki: Your First Article. Can you view my user page and see how it looks now, or can I post it somewhere temporarily for your review? I am unable to repost,obviously. Thanks! CKKocherecri (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I continue to see no sources about the organization, just some reports it has issued; the article still appears mainly promotional. I removed some of the worst of it, unsuitable even for user space. As I have no COI, & as it might be notable, when I have a chance in a week or two I may try to write an article about it. Anyone else without COI is welcome to try , of course, and I certainly would encourage them to do so. End of discussion here, please. DGG (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ECRI Institute Hi Dave - A strange thing happened today at ECRI. Our forensic scientist and on of our vice presidents received a google alert today as he tracks instances of ECRI Institute on the Web. The Google Alert gave him my most up-to-date User Page from last night, complete with the references you asked for. I had rewritten it to take out all promotional verbage.

I will send you the link because it may help you to see if I am getting closer to being publishable on Wikipedia. He was happy to see we are attempting to have a mention there, as we are truly notable.

I would like to email you the link he received today with all my user page content. He of course if we were in fact on Wikipedia? He saw that we had been deleted and was concerned.

The message he got, with the link to my WIki user page, was:

Google Web Alert for: "ECRI Institute" UserKocherecri Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

ECRI Institute is a nonprofit organization that uses the discipline of applied ... ECRI Institute publishes hazard reports and alerts journals resource ...

I didn't know that my user page could be out there for the public to view in such a way. CKKocherecri (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can view other people's, they can view yours'. What you mean, I suspect, is that you did not know that google indexes it. They do. I don't think they should, and we could prevent it by technical means, but the consensus here so far as been otherwise. DGG (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

{{NOINDEX |visible = yes}}

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

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

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

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

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

full-out phishing expedition

Please, I need you to be involved. DreamGuy and MuZemike have started a complaint about me, once again, claiming that I am a sockpuppet here. This is the 2nd taime is a week. It looks like a full-out phishing expedition this time. They have also thrown the relative newbie User:Granite thump into their complaint. This is a huge assumption of bad faith. MuZemike and DreamGuy's accusations, the approval of a CheckUser, and no notification to either myself or User:Granite thump, is completely against wikipolicy (as I understand it). You are an admin. It is part of your role to enforce the rules and policy. Is there anything you can do to help control the harassment we are now be subjected to? And also, can you explain to me why the WP:AE review of DreamGuy’s behaviour was so suddenly aborted by User:KillerChihuahua, with no sanctions against DG? That was just strange. If you are not able/willing to get involved, can you point me to someone who is not afraid of DG? Varbas (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Kindly send me an email from this page. I need to ask you some questions . Running checkuser is according to the discretion of the checkusers. I remind you again that I will never be able to do anything as an administrator here in anything involving Dream Guy. You must try one of the i admins who has not had run ins with him previously (there still are some). DGG (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not give out my e-mail address. If you have questions to ask of me, then please ask them. Varbas (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

then you can hardly expect help from me in something of this sort. You surely are aware of how to set up a throw-away email account. How can I ask you the obvious and necessary questions without possibly prejudicing the case against you? You want me to ask them in public, I'll do it at the AN/I. You chose to come here and ask for help, remember! DGG (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Regional vocabularies of American English

As you probably know, following AfD discussion the consensus was to keep and clean up Regional vocabularies of American English. This will require adding references where possible, and removing large amounts of unreferenced material. I have begun this process; your help would be greatly appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

ECRI Institute

DGG - Help!! On May 24 on your talk page, you had offered to rewrite the ECRI Institute article. I have provided everything I can to help you in terms of references, and rewrote the page myself on my User page. I don't know what to do next. Is there someone else that can help me? Carol ~~

Kindly email me the text of the JAMA article, which is the only one that might possibly prove notability. It is not available on line that I can determine. DGG (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

ECRI Institute

DGG - Happy to scan JAMA article for you - can I add it to your talk page as an attachment somehow, or should I email it to you? THanks for your help. Carol~~

I have emailed you. DGG (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just scanned and emailed NYTimes and JAMA articles for you. CK~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocherecri (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do tonight or tomorrow. DGG (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, David - I really appreciate it and good luck!! June 3, 2009 CK~~

Mowbray Howard, 6th Earl of Effingham?

Is every little peer notable enough for their own article, even if they don't do anything of note? Maybe my republicanism is showing, but I didn't think that was the case. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"little" peers such as baronets are not. Major peerage , such as earls, usually have been considered to be. For right reasons or wrong, they have usually been important enough for there to be sources. English major peers until very recently have also always been members of the legislature. , which unquestionably counts. DGG (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Hansard's database, he spoke in the the Lords three times: once in 1966, twice in 1967; I assume he must have attended more often than that. I reckon that puts him at least on a par of notability with the typical member of, say, the New Hampshire House of Representatives (all 400 of them). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NH is interesting. The proportion to population is 1:3000. Assuming most members are re-elected once, then 1:300 adults there are notable. As you might expect, my conclusion is to use that ratio worldwide. Given 3 billion living adults, that's 10 million BLPs. If 100 billion is the total number of humans who have ever lived [11] then the number would be higher, but since nowhere near as many lived to be adults or lived as long once they became adults, I'll estimate we should have 100 million articles about people. Maybe half, if NH people are more interesting than the average.

High schools

This is an interesting claim! Please point out to me all the articles on High Schools I have supposedly "repeatedly" nominated? I happen to think that many, if not most High Schools are notable. What I do not accept is arguments about how other schools are notable have any relevance about the notability of the schools under discussion at AfD, here and elsewhere. As a follow up question, if the concept of inherent notability of High Schools was developed through the outcomes of AfDs, how is it any more POINTy of me to use the same medium to point out its absurdity? Why is it now POINTy to consider that WP:N and the use of quality sources and encyclopedic material should apply across the entire encyclopedia?

I am not picking High Schools at random; articles on schools that I have nominated for deletion or commented in support of their deletion (and their have not been that many) have all failed to meet WP:N and the arguments to keep are generally circular reasoning —i.e. schools are kept because they are usualy kept—and only rarely on the merits of the actual article. If High School articles require an exemption from WP:N, then a draft guideline should be developed and consensus for this demonstrated. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already modified my statement there. For this particular group of schools, the usual argument does not necessarily hold, & I supplemented it, & removed any comment about other nominations. My apologies for that; this was not the AfD to say it.

But it seems you do hold the position that the practice should in fact be changed. How many afds will it take to convince you that the consensus is otherwise? I've given the argument enough times with respect to schools, so I will say it more generally: for some classes of things it is in practice convenient to adopt conventions & fixed rules, instead of deciding individually. We have to balance the harm from including articles on a few subnotable things & omitting articles on a few barely notable ones on the one hand, with the advantages of having more time and energy for article writing and sourcing rather than debate on the other. This is a big encyclopedia with a lot of topics to cover. There are hundreds of thousands of high schools in the world--over 30,000 in the US alone. There are an even greater number of primary and intermediate schools. Many of each will be unclear about notability, but if argued fully and after a careful and painstaking search, about 80 or 90% of the high schools and about 10 or 20% of the other schools will be shown notable. Rather than debate tens of thousands of articles, it is better to have the simple rule that one class get articles, and the other merges into school districts or localities. There are hundreds of thousands of little towns and villages. We could probably meet the technical requirements for 95% in the developed countries, and elsewhere as sources become available. We could fight about just which 10,000 to omit, or we could just leave them all & work on writing better articles and covering the areas left uncovered. There are as I discussed above hundreds of thousands of state-level politicians. Frankly, I doubt that that more than 80% or so are notable& it might be less-but it isn't worth the effort to remove them. It's better to get whatever verifiable information we do have, and leave the articles for beginners to work on.

It bothers me too when there's an article on something not really worth it--but we have hugh gaps to fill. And, more important, we have tens of thousands of articles with gross puffery and spam and nonsense and error and prejudice, on notable and unnotable alike, and that sort of material is what really harms the encyclopedia. We have work to do. I like debating, and I'd gladly argue with you all night, but there's stuff to write and edit. So back I go to speedy patrol to get rid of the worst of it. DGG (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of journalists

Hi DGG

I have a poser for you. The nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Theodoulou correctly pointed out that the stub doesn't really assert "WP:N"-type notability, and is unreferenced. Despite a reasonable effort to find sources (including well beyond the Internet) about the subject, I failed to turn up anything usable. Anything based on the number of articles that he has written can be reasonably considered WP:OR. I don't have a strong argument (or, necessarily, a strong view) that this sort of stub article should be kept—do you have any views?

Regards, Bongomatic 06:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Journalists have been a consistent problem. They are almost never written about, unless they win major awards. And, of course, Google is no great help in sorting out the very few articles about them from the ones that represent their writings. I do not consider counting articles to be OR--we've done this for WP:PROF for year. And you can get citations also, in Google Scholar. DGG (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescued

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

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

your comment about disruptive editing

Your comment here [12], are you then willing to block people on the basis of this, and do other admins? it's a slippery slope of saying well it's similar to an official rule so it can't be right. it's like saying manslaughter should be punished like murder. LibStar (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

there are many ways of being disruptive. My idea of how to deal with disruption, is informal advice, and then if necessary calling it to the attention of the community, in the hope that others will see it for what it is. I don't block for anything short of downright vandalism. that is either repeated after warning or so drastic as to require immediate action. Formal disciplinary action is a last resort, just like deletion.

as for slippery slopes, what I do not like are precipices: tolerating improper and risky behavior until someone actually falls of the cliff. The point of even blocking is not to punish according to one's sins, but to prevent people from continuing to do things wrong. Thus I restate from the place you referenced,

there are several allied improper behaviors: tag-teaming, where several editors combine to force through changes they would not be able to otherwise because of 3RR; piling on, adding identical votes because someone else has voted, whether or not you have specifically been requested to; meat-puppetry, acting essentially as a proxy for another editor whether by explicit or implicit agreement; and also of course canvassing, whether during an AfD or in preparation for one. All 4 are disruptive. The technicalities are not important, the effect is what we should pay attention to. DGG (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the UK House of Lords? I don't think you should have started yet--I think it needs a good deal wider participation first. I'm reluctant to do canvassing, but the proposal that member of the HoL were never inherently notable as members of a legislature , even before the reform in 1999, is in clear contradiction of historical fact, and an example of recentism run amok. Traditional topics remain notable. If I were to make a joke about that, I could see it as a clear attempt to get me diverted from defending fiction and bilateral relations, in order to tempt me to individually defend each of the thousands of these. WP, the encyclopedia that made not only present, but past aristocracy obsolete by its own fiat. DGG (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We've advertised it wide and far - if people aren't interested in participating, that's there problem. The rule on legislative members was put there for a reason - notability is built on references, and the idea is that the actions requires for someone to become a member of a national legislative body are important enough that the attention of newspapers, journals, other RSs will be drawn to them. The achievement of getting born, however? Not so much. If these people have done something notable (actually attending would be a good start for many of them) then references will be available. I'm not engaging in recentism; take a look at my created articles and see if I think old things are less important than new things. My FA? About a dead man. My GAs? About several dead men, one of them for over two hundred years, and cases started and operated in by dead men. The rule on members of a legislature inherently passing WP:BIO was put there for a reason. Members of the House of Lords who never took their seats, never showed any interest in politics and in one case died so soon after getting the title that he couldn't have gone to the Lords without a bullet train clash with that reason. Please explain, if you will, how a figure who gained his role in the Lords through the death of his father and no notable achievements of his own and died before he could even physically have attended counts as a politician? He was a member of a house that he never attended, and through no achievement of his own. Ironholds (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

your comments on bilateral AfDs

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

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

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

GHits in an article?

I hate asking a 2nd question like this, but I would have reverted that Wiseman edit on principle. Are you sure about its inclusion? Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

it's a hack in place of a proper expansion to show the ones that are pertinent, which are about half. It is however enough to overcome the argument there nobody refers to him, which is a proper use.

I see, but surely all of those authors might have been calling his works rubbish, or supporting him and saying that he proves that aliens built the pyramids. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, it needs to be expanded with the actual citations. Anyhow, something which many scholars go to the trouble of citing the work as rubbish is notable. (a much more difficult problem is the fringe theory so weird that scholars simply ignore, and we can find no 3rd party references for). And the sources there show that the citing people cannot be all cranks. DGG (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

ECRI Institute

David - You recommended yesterday that I try again to write my ECRI Institute article with the references you found acceptable. However, when I go to Create an Article, I get a message "Unauthorized" and "This page is currently protected and can be edited or moved only by administrators." As an administrator, can you help me to go back in?

Also, we are referenced on the AHRQ website http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epc/ecriepc.htm. It's a full page about ECRI being an Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC). AHRQ is actually an article on Wikipedia.

Another good reference to add to JAMA and NYTimes is http://www.the-scientist.com/2008/01/01/s18/2/ Article about ECRI Institute in The Scientist.

I could really use some help with my next steps as I am happy to try again at this, as you recommended. It seems like you are really, really overloaded. Is there any other administrator who might be able to help me? Thanks, DGG 6-16-09 carolKocherecri (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

any editor can do this. it does not take an administrator. DGG (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lockwood's Books

Hello there, David. Thank you so much for helping me fix/edit my article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lockwood_(author). I just learned that you left out the "Green Books" section? My reasons for doing that's because those books (green) are so much different from Lockwood's earlier books on architectural and urban history. Second is, 25 years has passed since the publication of his architectural history book. If this is not acceptable, I think I'll just go re-order the books so the most recent comes first and the oldest book last? Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page. Please remember that anyone can edit an article, not just you and me. When I edit, I do so not an administrator with any special authority, but just an editor of some experience in knowing what will make an article that the community will consider acceptable. DGG (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

International Journal of General Systems

Hi DGG,

I have always kept my doubts about your removal of to the journal related scientists on the International Journal of General Systems article. Now I have raised a question about this on the articles talk page (here) and at the WikiProject Academic Journals (here). I would appreciate if your could comment there. Thank you.

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

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

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

Opinion requested

Could you take a look at Brian D. Beaudreault. I de-PRODed the article because I was unsure if he ould be considered notable or not. He has some news mentions at GNews, but nothing super significant. I couldn't find any AfDs on U.S. military officers to serve as guidance, and thought you might have a better idea.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

the general practice seems to be that under the rank of major-general, and without very high level decorations, they are not kept unless there is some special reason for notability, such as being in charge of a really major newsworthy special operation, or of some personal distinctiveness. I do not see any of this-- he seems to not have any notability apart from his unit. Agreed, it's a notable unit. For some reason I do not understand, the articles on these MEUs do not contain a list of the successive commanders. By analogy to other organizations, I would have thought it reasonable to add them. Army units of the same size seem to have such lists, eg. 1st Cavalry Regiment (United States) DGG (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in for a moment, as the editor who prodded the article. In general, the notability requirements for biographies, and specifically military biographies, requires the individual to have some kind of recognition beyond his or her peers (for example, what makes this guy more notable than the 700 or so other Marine Colonels?). I figured it was pretty black and white: no signifcant awards, no significant events associated with him, no especially notable commands, no major contributions to any field. He could be just about any other officer.

I do agree that MEUs are probably the most notable of Marine units. However, I don't think a reference exists that lists the names of past commanders, at least not accessible to the general public. If one were to exist, I'd be happy to edit the articles and add them. Thanks, bahamut0013^words_deeds 05:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

that business, notable beyond his peers, does not seem to be to be logical--a 2nd lt. needs to be notable beyond other 2nd lts, and a lt. gen. beyond other lt. gen.? The 2 groups are not comparable. To revert to my own field, it's like saying we judge the notability of asst. professors by comparing them with other assistant professors, and the top 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/10 of them are notable--in reality it's many fewer than that. You've said two different things above; you've compared to the other colonels, and to just officers. If the group is all Marines officers, then certainly only a small percentage of them are Colonels. 5% ? I tend to look at this as selecting the top rank or ranks of the profession, but we surely don't mean full generals only, or just Distinguished Professors. Numerically, it takes 2 factors: , what is the overall group (e.g. officers or career officers), and what percentage do we want of them. Non-numerically, it takes figuring out at what level it corresponds to some meaning of distinguished. I don't like to go by the GNG, because then the factor is how efficient is the publicity apparatus in the field concerned, and what level publication counts as a discriminating reliable source. At least the US military takes care of one problem for us: the availability of reliable copyright-cleared material, text and especially photos. I wish other fields had something like their standard of free published biographic information. DGG (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood; the rank comparison was just an example. The term "peers" could be as narrow or as wide as the circumstance requires, though we could alter it, to say, just include MEU commanders or widen it to officers of LtCol or higher. There are a great many officers in the United States military, and they are not all notable, even those in the upper ranks. Given that we can't reasonably have biographies on every single individual or even most individuals, we have to pick and choose whom to have articles on... thus the notability criteria. I think my point was rather that this individual has no more notability than any other average officer; and that if we were to judge him notable, we would be changing the standard of notability to include a huge number of other individuals as well. I understand that the "other articles exist" argument is considered weak by many, but at this time, I don't think it makes much sense to have seemingly random exceptions to the rule. I was in no way stating that rank makes notability, though coincidentally, the higher ranking individuals (such as generals) usually hold a post important enough to make them notable.

Perhaps I can rephrase what I said: ...requires the individual to have some kind of recognition beyond his or her peers, adjusted for the size and importance of that peerage. If you'd like, you can take a look at the demographics and make some statistical analysis (3.55% of officers are colonels, BTW). All for grades of general are lumped together, but I happen to know that the Corps only has four four-star generals currently, all of whom have established notability; on the flip side, there are nearly 40,000 Lance Corporals, and I'd be suprised if more than a dozen have biographies. What makes a private notable above his peers may not make him notable enough for Wikipedia.

I am in agreement with you regarding public sourcing. Like you say, publicity doesn't always equate to notability, and lack of publicity doesn't always equate lack of notability. There is one drawback to using military biographical information in Wikipedia, however, being that any given bio is likely to be a few years out of date, but with the proliferation of internet news services, you can usually find an archive of just about every minor press release on the most obscure military individual. bahamut0013^words_deeds 08:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We were both giving examples to try to find a way of expressing what we meant. I too do not want to greatly increase the standard for individual bios in general--we have too much filling in to do for the people who qualify--just look at all the earlier Olympic athletes without articles. I am not an inclusionist in that sense, though some people mistakenly think I am. But do you think that we should not recognize the standards of a profession, to the extent that whomever they consider suitably qualified for the highest ranks is notable? (At least in those professions that do have ranks of some sort.) IIs it really coincidental that the people at the highest formal ranks have the most important positions in an hierarchical structure?. Even when someone is promoted for reasons unrelated to competence, aren't they still given a job to correspond to the rank?). It's then a matter of picking a rank above which they are appropriate for inclusion, and saying that below it requires something special. (e.g. for business executives we certainly ought to consider a CEO of a Fortune 500 company notable, but below that, it varies, and we can use other criteria--even including that of extensive publicity, on the basis that if there is enough publicity, a user might look here to get information.)

I'm not happy with the concept of notability being recognition outside one's specific area. (I don't think you mean peers in the sense of those of the same rank.) It depends on what one calls the specific area. Army officers known to people in the Navy? or to those who follow military affairs? or to the general public? If it's the latter, almost no one in the military or academic world or business world is notable--just politicians and actors. Where that concept does work is for local figures--a person has to be known outside their village--one place where I completely agree with the current formal standard. DGG (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail opinions DGG & Bahamut0013. I went ahead and nominated the article for deletion with no opinion expressed myself, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_D._Beaudreault. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreating an article

I'd like to recreate the Devendra Prabhudesai article. It was a close AfD discussion, to the best of my recollection, and I think the wrong decision was made. But regardless, this June 7 story in the Hindu [13] and this one from April [14] certainly go a long way to establish notability. I already have the article in my userspace, but I don't want to violate GFDL by recreating without the edit history. I hope all is well with you. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I replaced your userspace article with the one carrying the history and incorporating your modifications. Next time, please ask to have it done this way in the first place, rather than copy and paste. DGG (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Will do. Roger roger. Thank you very much. As always. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy DGG's Day!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MIT Journal for consideration

Hi, me again. I understand that one of your specialties is on scientific journal. Please take a look at this one http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0022-2526, which ranks very high, and is sponsored by MIT, thus with solid backing. See if you may want to include it in WP. --EJohn59 (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn

Sure, just write the article after the pattern of the other journal articles. I'll take a look that you get it right. Let me know when ready. DGG (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see draft on my talk page. I saw somewhere about the name change, but cannot find the ref now. Maybe you can help, or I'll write to the editor.--EJohn59 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn

It's enough to show notability, because of the ISI rank. If you can find the previous editors, add them all. See if they have WP articles yet, and link. DGG (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, David, I put it up. See Studies in Applied Mathematics. It turns out there has been only one Editor since 1969, when the Journal adopted the new name, as confirmed on the MIT Math Dept web site. My friend wrote to them and is still waiting for their response on the Founding Editor in its previous incarnation, ie, MIT J. of Math & Phys.--EJohn59 (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn

now do the proper journal infobox--copy the format from another journal. The journal cover is an acceptable illustration, but add it with the same copyright justification as used for other journal covers. DGG (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

infobox added but sorry I don't know how to add image.--EJohn59 (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)EJohn

A Treasure Trove

First, thanks for your assistence at Catherine Hakim. The author is a friend and he is on his Honeymoon. The threatened speedy delete would have been a dissapointment I'm sure. (While Im a member of the Article Rescue Squad, I do my best to stay out of the fray that surrounds deleting/improving) Second, I plan on "ingesting" your talk pages. What little I have read are lessons on sane wikiediting. Thank you for sharing yourself with us.--Buster7 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

you might then in particular want to see my topical archives listed at the start of the page, where I have pulled out some discussions of some recurring subjects. I support your approach , that it is more important to improve what is improvable (while deleting the junk) than to argue about them. DGG (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

7528 Huskvarna

The same guy nominated this for speedy after you declined. I declined and cleaned it up, removing blank links (like he could have done rather than tag it, argh). Any way, you may want to keep an eye on it to see if he goes for a third-time's-a-charm approach. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to draw your attention...

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

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

Indeed, WP space.

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

Asteroid stubs

I was told:

Please do not re-add speedy deletion tags to articles where they have been removed by a neutral editor as you did with 7528 Huskvarna. If you think the article should be deleted, nominate it at WP:AFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

where it will undoubtedly be kept, like the several thousand other such asteroids in Category:Asteroid stubs. DGG (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Before I start the AfD, could someone tell me why a robot was allowed to run amuck and create what appears to be several thousand totally useless articles? Are we letting robots write the encyclopedia now? Does anyone care about these? Does anyone other than robots read these articles? What possible benefit is it to the encyclopedia to clone data that was safely buried in an on-line database and fan it out into inefficient text? Why aren't these merged into the equally useless List of asteroids? What's next, stub aticles for every licence plate going past someone's window? A link to the last AfD nomination for these stubs would be very illuminating. Junk like this I think adversely impacts the credibility of the Wikipedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may butt in.. the goal of the project is to provide a free summary of all notable human knowledge. Many things (esp. scientific topics) are notable even if very few people care about them. Not being popular/well-known isn't the same thing as not being notable. In can reasonably be argued that all astrological bodies fit into this automatically notable category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I was not saying that itwas my opinion that the asteroid stubs should be kept, I was rather telling you on the basis of experience and previous challenges to them that they undoubtedly will be--I would strongly advise you to read the arguments in other discussions both for individual ones and some of the lists. If anything, I think consensus is even stronger for this than in previous discussions. I would give you this advice regardless of my own views on the matter--I try to give the most accurate advice I can based on what I think is likely to happen here. If someone asks me what policy or practice here is , I tell them what it is, not what I want it to be. Anything else would be irresponsible. This is not a robot running amok, which has happened, but a well-considered, well-planned, and accepted project.
2. if you want to know my own views on the matter, I think that all named astronomical objects are important, and should be considered here as notable-- though I admit there may be a problem when it comes to galaxies and individual starts in all of them, especially if the number is in fact infinite. (Even so, there will never be an infinite number with names and identities.) This is an encyclopedia of both the real world and the world of human imagination. The objects of astronomy are basic to the real universe. And a considerable number of people care about them, and have cared about them since the dawn of history & probably before. Even now, astronomy is a major hobby in most countries. Probably 90% of the encyclopedia is of no actual interest to me. And so it will be for any one individual. Our success is as a group project. DGG (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion on this at WT:ASTRO (currently taking up most of the talk page) 76.66.203.200 (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Call for opinion on a neutrality accusation in a human genetics related article

As a fellow member of the WikiProject HGH may I ask for opinions on this accusation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia at the Library

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

Thanks

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

Dr. Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra

Hi DGG; I don't think I'm hallucinating...the text is an almost exact transcription of the two web sites noted in the speedy deletion nomination. Thanks for your attention, JNW (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I only saw the first of the two sites. Thanks for correcting me. It's gone now. DGG (talk) 03:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's back up again, apparently in identical form... JNW (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've now protected the article against re-creation under the same name. It might be useful to check the users other contributions, since they seem to be on the same general subject. While we don't want to lose a specialist contributor, if he's adding copyvio, he has to be stopped. DGG (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG/JNW, This content I am adding is not just copy and paste. The web site http://mohapsa.tripod.com/rpmohapatra is the web site developed and maintened by my self. I thought it would be easier for me to add things in stead of writing it again. I am currently adding stuff and put the hangon tag on top so that you guys show enough courtsey till I finish. He was a very notable archaeologist whose contribution is very significant for Orissan Archaeology, Art, Culture and History. I am fully aware of the and believe on copy right violation on Wiki. So definitely I will not add any thing that is in-appropriate.

Trust this will give you enough reason. Thanks in advance for your co-operation.

Please see WP:COPYRIGHT. The easiest way of handling this is to put a license for GFDL and CC-BY 2.0 on the web page. Copyrighht is one of the things where we have to follow the rules. Let me know when you;ve done that, and i will restore the article. DGG (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG can you please let me know how I can put a license for GFDL and CC-BY 2.0 on the web page. Once I got to know how I can do that I will put the request right away.

Appreciate your help on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikoo s (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already sent an e-mail and placed a licence for GFDL and CC-BY-SA CC-BY 2.0 on my webpage http://mohapsa.tripod.com/rpmohapatra. Can you please restore my page on Dr. Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra at the earliest.

Thanks in advance..--Tikoo s (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG I have been waiting for your action on my article. Please let me know when that can be taken care of.--Tikoo s (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No issue just let me know when you do it!!--Tikoo s (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people can scrape through the eligibility criterion for notability. Every building in every American university is named after some person, whose names do not find mention in Wikipedia. In Orissa, there are many people I know personally that have received a lot more recognition than R. P. Mohapatra. I don't think they are eligible for a wikipedia page.

The section "Selected Research Articles" lists 39 research papers written by him. Every faculty in every university publishers that much, and in more significant forums. Not one of those articles was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal. If they were, I invite Tikoo_S to provide the impact factors of those journals. Books published by unknown publishers like "Cosmo Publications, Delhi," or "D. K. Publications, Delhi," are unknown. There are hundreds of such books that are much more current and up-to-date.

If R. P. Mohapatra's earning doctorates from relatively unknown universities, like Utkal University, is shown in the introductory paragraph of Ramesh_Prasad_Mohapatra, it only goes to reflect the person's insignificance.

I hope my negative comments are not misconstrued as attacks. The reason I am raising this issue is because Tikoo_S has been citing those entirely unknown publications everywhere:

• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]

There are more...

These are topics that are not even closely related. A person whose expertise covers this wide a range, must be quite someone!

Either that or Tikoo_S is spamming, which I strongly believe to be the case. In fact ALL that Tikoo_S has contributed to in wikipedia is adding stuff on R. P. Mohapatra everywhere possible. I am almost certain that Tikoo_S, whose last name is also "Mohapatra", is none other than R. P. Mohapatra's son.

In December 2007, I had placed a warning in Tikoo_s's talk page. Frankly it was a headache to undo all the advertising that Tikoo_s had done.

SDas (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

buildings in American universities when named for people are typically named after either 1/ the person who gave the monuy, who is generally an extremely rich philanthropist who would get an article, or 2/ the parent, child or wife of such a person--who usually but not always is non-notable. or a noted college figure like a former president or particularly distinguished professor--who would get an article, or a particularly distinguished alumnus--who would get an article--or a politician connected with the university in some way--who would also get an article, or sometimes some miscellaneous person whom they wish to commemorate--who may or may not be notable. Examples from Princeton: Firestone Library, Guyot Hall, Woodrow Wilson School, Burr Hall. Frist Campus Center , Baker Rink -- all people who would get an article

39 research papers written by him. Every faculty in every university publishers that much -- the average number of faculty publications is between 1 and 2. Of course, it's much higher in major universities.

people who I know personally -- so write articles about them, if you can find printed sources.

DK Publishing is one of the major Indian academic publishers, and one of the best known, at least to me.

journals most of his articles are published by journals associated with his museum. This is normal for archeology and similar fields. They are in any case probably much less important than his books, as usual for the humanities.

In any case, the place to challenge notability is not here, but at AfD. The article does need some improvements, like most WP articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Buildings in US Universities also go by small donors. I can name a few myself, such as Adams Atkins Arena, CSU (I just randomly picked one).

Citation count: I was not aware that the average publication count is so low. Nevertheless, 37 papers is quite low.

"people I know personally" - I consider it unethical to add entries of personal friends. But there are well published people whom I do not consider to be meritorious enough.

DK publishers - I am not sure if it is the well known DK publishers or some other one. I could be wrong. One needs to verify. An ISBN number perhaps?

As an experienced user fconaway and I discussed after a simple google search, link provided by the user, and the user tikoo S's singular focus on R P Mohapatra, in Dec 2007, that the user is most likely the son of R P Mohapatra, the question of ethics naturally arises.

My concern is the insertion of references to R.P. Mohapatra's papers in irrelevant places - Bhubaneswar being a case to point. That's spamming, and in Dec 2007, after a discussion with fconaway, a warning was placed. My main purpose is not deletion of R P Mohapatra, but to stop tikoo S from adding citations to R. P. Mohapatra in places like Bhubaneswar, inspite of being warned before. Deleting R. P. Mohapatra is secondary, but should be discussed.

My apologies for placing the speedy deletion tag. I was not aware of the difference between AfD and that. I thoguht they were one and the same.

Thanks,

SDas (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

He published a book on the archeology of Orissa. Is there a better one? If not, his would be appropriate to cite for the archeological background. If there is a better one, add it. I do not consider this as a spam link, nor would it be for any archeological monument in the state. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes there most certainly are, which I'll add within a few days. Nevertheless, in Dec 2007, on the basis of a discussion with an experienced user (who I think was also an administrator), a warning was given to tikoo_s. And I don't think archaeological references are quite needed in an article on the modern city of Bhubaneswar, when a government tourism site will suffice. Adding one's own father's/relative's publication is IMHO self promotion.

Thanks

SDas (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Added later: User Tikoo_S's very own homepage: http://mohapsa.tripod.com/ says "Welcome to Manisha & Saroj Kumar Mohapatra's homepage". The last name matches that of R. P. Mohapatra, and is not at all common in India.

SDas (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's good to know there are better books. Add them. In fact, if you know the topics, the most valuable thing you could possibly do for Wikipedia right now is to add better references for topics like this--in general india at Wikipedia seems a poorly referenced subject area with many articles having only very vague citations, or relying on travel guides and the like. But Wikipedia covers not just the present world but the past, and we certainly do cover the history of a city, including early history--in fact, if the amount of material available is sufficient we often make a full article out of it. WP is not a travel guide--a travel guide gives what pressent-day visitors to the city need; we give comprehensive coverage of all aspect. Archeological references are certainly needed; do not take them out unless you can find better ones covering the archeology. We do not rely on government tourism sites if we can do better--they are sometimes useful, sometimes inadequate. See WP:RS for some general guides to what's considered best. Nor do we rely on what is covered elsewhere on the web in deciding what to cover here. We only rely on them for details not worth covering here, such as very minor characters in a soap opera. And again, if you want to challenge the article, use AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I am sorry to bother you again, but as you are already involved, I request your attention again. :) While I do not think that Ramesh Prasad Mohapatra deserves a encyclopedic entries, I realize that it is moot, and up for discussion. However, the issue here now is personal attacks directed at me by another user tikoo_s in the user's talk page. Thanks.

SDas (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not all that happy with the contribution of either of you to the discussion, and the best thing to do is stop commenting on each other. At the moment there is nothing underway which would lead to the deletion of the article If you wish to nominate the article for deletion, do so by WP:AFD--but if so, confine your comments to a short paragraph explaining the reason you think him not-notable. And be very careful to comment only on the article and the subject of the article, not each other. The likelihood of deletions is something I cannot specify-- AfD discussions are unpredictable and the result is not up to me DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I do intend to follow up on your recommendation. However I want to do it after this issue settles down. I am not aware of wikipedia's processes for article deletion/moderation, but for the record I haven't indulged in personal attacks of any kind. I will find time to familiarize myself with the rules before suggesting AfD (as I did yesterday), and/or requesting moderation. The crux of the matter is the issue of someone putting up a wikipedia article and citing an immediate family member in several others, which in my judgment is COI. I do note that the user has already voluntarily begun to remove some of the citations that he/she had added earlier, which in my view was not relevant - which was my original concern.

In the interim, I'll just go about contributing to wikipedia as usual. Thanks again for your advice. SDas (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Too long, but you read it anyway

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

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

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

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

Journals

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

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence (journal)

Given the discussion about the inclusion of Editorial Board members above, you may want to have a look at this article. --Crusio (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

removed, and am addingjustification on the talk p. will watch-list. DGG (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rescue

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

Thanks

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

Arguing against redirects?

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

Yes, I think I do know why:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might want to check your current argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavilan Elessedil, [21] DGG (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Optional request for opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Butterflies of Morocco Deletion

I put some thoughts on the talk page.I could have avoided this by making the list partly alphabetical. The "scientific order" represents a truth without foundation. Many thanks for your forbearance. I should have given this more thought and time. Robert aka Notafly (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you say you cannot work on it till September, the best thing to do then is to ask for the page to be deleted, and re-enter it at that time. Just place at the top a line reading" "{{db-author}}",. There will be no prejudice when you redo it. DGG (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine I'll do that atb Notafly (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I deleted it. DGG (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD

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

Academic journal

Hi. You've edited Academic journal a few times so I guess it's on your watchlist. Can you have a look at the recent history? A minor edit war has broken out between me and an anon IP SPA. One of us clearly has a bee in his bonnet and I'm starting to wonder who!

As far as I can see he's added well meaning but irrelevant ELs which are also in breach of WP:EL because to get at the content you require registration. On their own the links don't do anything to enhance the article. He won't talk about it even when I shout. I've now reached the 3RR stage so I thought it would be helpful if someone else had a look.

Thanks. andy (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, forget this. He's been blocked for 24 hours and I've restored the article. andy (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw one of those changes last night, but didn't catch that it was repeated. Glad he;'s been taken care of. I am a few days behind on my watchlist. DGG (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

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

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

your comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some rewrite Charles Lockwood (author)

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

List of actors who have played animated characters

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

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

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

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

WikiProject TRANSWIKI

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

Thank you...

...for the kind words, both on my talk page and via e-mail. They are greatly appreciated.

I just needed a couple of days to back off and cool down. Though this really wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision...it's been a while brewing, and things just came to a head with the ANI. Ah, well...I'm back, now, and don't intend leaving any time soon. :-)

Once again, many thanks. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

DSB project

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

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

Pity the picnic never actually happened.

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

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

So-called apamming by learned societies etc

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

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

So-called apamming by learned societies etc

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

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

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

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

Coatrack

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) I have long considered you sort of an "unofficial mentor" as I have learned more from you and your talk page than most other places. I also view you as one of Wikipedia's wisest and most respected members. As such, it was an honor to have your support on my RfA. I look forward to serving the community in my new role.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

JP Travel and general notability of smaller bus operators

Hello, there is a discussion at Talk:JP Travel which you may be interested in regarding notability of smaller bus operators. (This is a copy and paste message, I have included you in this as you make bus related contributions in the past) Jeni ^(talk) 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

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

Vandalism

Looks like the same people up to old vandalism at ACTDU page. Recommend locking it for a while.JJJ999 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

done. After the week, you might want to consider removing such extraneous material as the names of all the current officers. DGG (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Stephaniedavidson‎

Hello, DGG. I was wondering, do you think the wording I used in my warning note to this user was appropriate? I'm looking for feedback on my warning work. Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Boondocks characters

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

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

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

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

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

Reply

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

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

Orquesta Tabaco y Ron

I wanted to create an article on Orquesta Tabaco y Ron, but I see it was deleted once and I wanted to check with you before re-creating it. I had no difficulty locating some sources providing basic information, such as: [22], and this detailed article written about the band in Latin Beat Magazine: [23]. I know that my notability standards are often lower than others though, and I'm biased here in that I really like this group, so I wanted to make sure that I'm not re-creating a page in vain that is just going to be deleted again. If you had any information on the page that was deleted (and if there's any salvageable material, if you could userify it) I would be very grateful, or if you have any information on why the page should not presently be re-created, I would like to know that too. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a very knowledgeable person on this type of subjects. The usual advice is to make it as a page in your userspace, so people can see what it would look like, and then ask for opinions at a suitable Wikiproject DGG (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

More work

Is this user page on your watchlist? If it's not, could I recommend it? As User:Bittergrey seems to be in perpetual content disputes, the most recent interchanges there are presumably mirrored across half a dozen related pages, including WP:SEX. I'd be happier if someone else were thinking about this problem before it gets any bigger. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. I am apparently to be relied on as the sort of fool who will rush in where angels fear to tread. :) DGG (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't buy the 'fool' part, but if you weren't reliable and responsive, I wouldn't have bothered asking.

Your response seems to have already done some good.[24] Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Katie Howard

I bow to your greater experience, but have you been following the great redirect kerfuffle. That dab page redirects to two topics that we don't have articles on.... However, if your opinion is it's OK to create two entry dab pages to disambiguate between non existent entries, then as I say, I bow to your greater experience.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been following it. I think Tyciol has been overdoing it. As everyone else there seems to think so also, i see no reason to get involved. DGG (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I quite sympathise. And Black Kite has fixed up that page handy dandy, much better than my suggestion of deleting it (now why didn't I think of Catherine Howard).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite's additions to the page were indeed excellent. I didn't know there was a General Hospital character with that name nor did Katie>Kate even occur to me (this shows BK's good experience with disambigs. I strongly oppose the removing of the 2 terms I initially added though (I had links to legitimate characters! Just because someone is on a list and not an entire article to their own doesn't mean you don't get mentioned!) and am glad User:Boleyn restored them. Tyciol (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been slowly going through the logs of the various people secretly assaulting my redirects without telling me. WP:RFD encourages that the polite thing to do is to notify people about redirects up for discussion (much less, applying for instant deletion without discussion). Good faith is assumed that deleters will only speedily delete obviously bad redirects and that's being abused, so I am thankful for editors who take the time to consider each one and not assume bad faith (and ignore obvious usefulness) through the deletion of anything with my name on it. Tyciol (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting Things Done NPOV

Thanks for cleaning up the Getting Things Done article. I have removed the NPOV tag, but would appreciate your comments in the discussion area if you see other opportunities for improvement. The page is subject to spam from software vendors claiming to be inspired by the methodology, but I think the core article describing the methodology is fairly NPOV. Open to suggestions. Cyberscribe (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Brad Lander article

The council race is of some note and Brad Lander is a citywide known advocate. I clarified that on the page, let me know what else I can do to make the article stick. Thanks. Michaelfs (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to defend the article, you can find some references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. You are right that the most likely notability will be his previous activities, not his running for city council. the article had been nominated for speedy, and I moved it to AfD to give you a chance to find the material. DGG (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August_2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

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

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

Communist genocide

At [25] you said communist genocide is "a well-known concept". I tried to check a few sources used in the article, but found nothing to confirm this (please see my expanded comments on the AfD page). All this material is surely present in the individual genocide articles, so why do we need this synthesis article? Also, do you think this article really representes WP:NPOV? Just take look at the first sentence ("Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes across the world. From the very beginning, communism forged a new order based on genocide") - no attribution, and this polemic opinion of a journalist is basically stated as the truth. Offliner (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith again

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryjo Adams Cochran

I would appreciate your comments on this stub. If you think she passes WP:PROF, I will close the discussion with a keep. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

See my comments there. DGG (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Schools notability

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

Name dropped in an off-wiki article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's happening erratically all over the site; happened to me also.. Saw it mentioned at AN/I. Bug reported earlier today [26] Cause presently unknown, except apparently related to a software update.DGG (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Americans for Responsibility in Washington

Hello - I thought I was doing the speedy delete thing properly. However, it appears I was mistaken and need some guidance. Can you help me understand how this article is notable so I may not make the same mistake again? Regards - BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

doesn't have to be notable to escape speedy. Just has to indicate some degree of possible importance or significance. This is a very much lower bar, deliberately set low--set so low that everyone would agree the article had no chance whatsoever. This article is borderline that way, and it would be fairer to use AfD.

but the delete reason was "This article no longer warrants placement on Wikipedia, as the organization named no longer exists (and only existed for a few months when it did)

" and this is not an applicable reason even at AfD. We have a very firm consensus that if something is notable and worthy of an encyclopedia article at any time, it always will be, and whether or not the organization still exists is therefore irrelevant.

On the basis of the references given , I doubt that it will survive AfD. The first step is to look for other references, per WP:BEFORE, and if you can't find them, send to AfD. DGG (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use

Hi DGG

Don't know if you're a fair use expert, but the most recent photograph of John Hughes (director) I could find was at Macquarie University. Any idea if there's a fair use rationale for including this in the encyclopedia?

Thanks, Bongomatic 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

noted. Thanks. Bongomatic 04:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

Did you notice my question above? You haven't answered it yet. I think your argumentation at the AfD was wrong, so it would be nice if you did. Offliner (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a qy to the comment you made on my remark there. Otherwise I have nothing further to add to the discussion. DGG (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Great userpage

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

Scientist bios

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

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

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

Matthew A. Hunter

You have sharp eyes! Its true, I based that article off of 2 sources. Most of it was just shifting sentences around and changing a few words. Don't worry, I will try to re-hash some it and probably find some more references and information. Thanks, Danski14^(talk) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

fyi

I thought you might be interested in this -- another plan to archive web content -- this one run by librarians.

I've wondered about the legality of these plans, whether they lapse from a strict compliance with copyright.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

as long as people can opt out, which is presently always the case for all legitimate schemes, there is no problem. Personally, I think libraries can take an even more proactive role. Just as they have the specific legislative permission in the US to make copies of books they own for preservation purposes if they are unavailable on the market--and even for unpublished material in some circumstances, they should have specific permission to do this also. One of the advantages of print was that one could not un-publish. I am reluctant to lose that safeguard, at least for material formally published on the net. Material illicitly there, or personally published without full realization of the implications, is a harder question, for it can be argued that the much greater possibility for invasion of privacy with the internet may require some compromise with the preservation needs for the future. DGG (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A tiny error

You wrote "AfD" when you meant "RfA" on WP:ANI. I tried to just fix it, but another editor reverted me and even warned me about my "inappropriate" edit. As such, I came here to waste more of my time & yours to tell you you'll have to fix it yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

you did right, of course, in the first place. For the record, I appreciate it when anyone fixes any of my typos or obvious errors, & nobody need ask my permission. The topic at issue seems to have produced an outbreak of irritation generally, and it seems to be expressed in unexpected directions. DGG (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's the diff to prove you fixed it (diff). No matter if you grant permission for other users to fix your typos, I think you should still be asked permission first before other users correct typos like these. I made the revert because there was no evidence that you gave any sort of permission, and I think it is a good thing to ask permission first, and until permission is granted, no action should be taken. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 06:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability for academic journals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your support!

Thanks for your support in reserving the Public housing estates in Hong Kong. Ricky@36 (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 04:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith?

User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion.

• First attempt to archive the active discussion
• Second attempt to archive the active discussion
• Third attempt to archive the active discussion
• Fourth attemot to archive the active discussion

• First warning
• Second warning

comment made by 190.25.101.144 (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he was right. I closed the discussion and collapsed the section. the discussion was becoming disruptive and repetitive. DGG (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the discussion it was asked for a "reliable" (according to Wikipedia Policies) source, supporting that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4, because the current article claims the contrary in this section: Aktion_T4#T4_and_euthanasia.
• There are a lot of sources, but at least one "reliable" (according to Wikipedia policies) source was provided in this post:Talk:Action_T4#propaganda_pro_euthanasia_.3D_crime_apology. This source (Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47) states that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4
• User:Ratel claims euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4 and he is involved in the mentioned dicussion.
• Therefore: why is he allowed to archive exactly all the discussion including the post providing the demanded source?
• Note that User:Ratel posted his first attempt to autoarchive the discussion some hours after the post providing the demanded source.

comment made by 190.27.99.91 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

I stepped in because I was uninvolved in the editing, and intend to continue to be uninvolved in the editing. At some point, disputes have to end. Whether I agree entirely with Ratel's position on the article is irrelevant. But FWIW, in my opinion, the 1949 Alexander article --available at various places on the web -- & his famous book are the classic source for the Nazi medical experimentation program, but his discussion of the relation of these practices to the contemporary meaning of euthanasia is very old-fashioned, & by current standards, naive. DGG (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• So, in this case (not reporting in wikipedia that Aktion T4 is euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4) doesn't apply the allegedly objective criteria to decide if a respective source is a reliable one according to the wikipedia policies? in this case it is not a reliable source because it is your own opinion that it is "naive and old-fashioned"? why?

comment made by 190.25.108.250 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

that's why I mentioned the date. You didn't. DGG (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• At least, it is also your own opinion, not a fact, why I missed the date.
• Do you need another example? Nuremberg Code (which deals on medical experiments on humans), also written by the same author of the mentioned source about the same date 1949, but also a lot of laws are still ruling, no matter the old date when those laws were written. Are you really allowed here in wikipedia to refuse those laws, at least refuse to publish them, because it is your own opinion that they are old-fashioned because the date when they were written?
• Again: in this case (not reporting in wikipedia that Aktion T4 is euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4) doesn't apply the allegedly objective criteria to decide if a respective source is a reliable one according to the wikipedia policies? in this case it is not a reliable source because it is your own opinion that it is "naive and old-fashioned because the date"? why?

comment made by 190.25.108.250 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

right, I gave it here explicitly as my own opinion. As I said, I am not working on this article. Discussion here is closed, please. DGG (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Amos Daragon

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

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

Speedies

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

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

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

WP:NOTIFY

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Transitioning Applications to Ontologies

An editor has nominated Transitioning Applications to Ontologies, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transitioning Applications to Ontologies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

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

Deletion review for My Tomato Pie

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

Hornbook project

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

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

Hello

Please go to [27] and vote again. Thank you. LargoLarry (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

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

Thanks for the info on WPCite

Ironically, I spent much of today (when I was supposed to be working) looking at that page. I also looked at the citation project page, but it doesn't look very active. I was reading it in the context of canonical reference - I'll look again for bibliography info. Thanks--SPhilbrickT 00:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

John Fisher school

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

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

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

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

RfA !vote (Headbomb)

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

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

afd procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"PlanetWM.com"

Dear DGG! Sorry for taking you time, but I would like to ask you about this matter. In my opinion, article about PlanetWM.com service can be usefull to some of readers, because it's one of leading digital currency exchangers. Many similiar services have articles about them here, so I think this one can be usefull too. Tonxxx (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Thanks, Anthony

you can always ask, no need to apologize. The thing to do is to find some references about it. You need references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. I can find none in Google News archive, or even in Google. So how is anyone to tell if it's important? If you can find anything at all, rewrite the article with it--if I still think its non-notable I will send it to AfD, where the community will judge. (I already had it in mind to check some of the other articles) The article was also deleteable as promotional. saying it is especially rapid, or has 24 hr. help service, is not really encyclopedic content. Please read WP:ORG, & see our FAQ about businesses & other organisations . DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I understand your point of view Will write another article later then Tonxxx (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Regards, Anthony

Re: Speedy

Please forgive me, I'm very inexperienced with CSD. I'm actually working on a coaching program with Juliancolton, and the one area that I told him I needed a lot of help with (and am currently working on) is CSD. I'm in the process of trying to gain more knowledge in speedy deletion. Thank you very much for the note, and please let me know in the future if I mess up again (although I hope it doesn't happen!). iMatthew ^talk at 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

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

Of interest?

Major book related Wikipedia hoax: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_20#The_Alphascript-Amazon-Wikipedia_book_hoax. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been under discussion at Wikien-L. The best couse seems to be to make use of amazon's comment facilities, and comment. Amazon are not fools, but they will judge by the results. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Just as a heads up you are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_review_of_admin.27s_actions.3F (obviously I did NOT start that thread) and thought you should be aware. Sincerley, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I see it appeared to be over before I got there--but this is one topic that is not going to diminish in virulence during my lifetime. when people with skills in academic controversy get involved in matters that challenge their sexuality, as well as their credentials, nothing good can be expected. The only practical popsition for the rest of the world is to stay clear, l'd go in only with heavy personnnel protection. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isola (fictional island)

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

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

Archiving

This is section 216 as I post it. Please consider archiving. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Team conflict

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lake Hayward

Sorry, I will not use delete templates until I become more familiar with them. --Anhamirak 12:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

JFS again

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

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

SOD/CAT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eight Nine RR and counting by SPA

User:Johnnypd on Communist genocide. PD as in law? Johnny Law come to make things right?User talk:Johnnypd Special:Contributions/Johnnypd

18:40; 19:03; 19:20; 19:39; 19:55; 20:03; 20:09; 20:24. 20:39new Anarchangel (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not claim any quality for the content of Johnnypd's edits. This is an appeal for the bright line to be invoked, only.

As for the article itself, it is currently a release valve for anti-Communist sentiment; garbage in, garbage out. There is no GA content in it atm; the only way there can be is if the genocide tag is dropped (I am not aware of intent to eliminate ethnic groups having been proved for any of the incidents), and the grey area between 'happened in a communist country' and 'policy of a Communist state' is firmly delineated. I am just biding my time until the heat is off, and then I think one day it can be a useful way to show the overreaction and zealousness of communism that lead to few mass killings, the inexplicable bloodbath by purported communists (Cambodia) and a few mass negligent homicides (Ukraine and China). Or perhaps I am wrong, and WP cannot sustain such an article against incessant waves of PoV editors. Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

maybe I was wrong when I !voted that the article should be kept. And probably you are right that the article should be retitled. Personally, i prefer the meaning of the word should be limited to the original, but the common use seems to be much broader, to mean a massacre comparable in scope to a genocide, & if so we must follow it. I do not think, btw, that "negligent" can be used of the Ukraine. Or for Mao--there is a difference between merely negligent, and callously indifferent. & I would not characterize the events that happened under Stalin (& probably Lenin as well) as not being state policy. There are also, of course, things to add, that will help demonstrate that it is perhaps characteristic. What is in my personal opinion characteristic is the ideological justifications that can be given, which are distinctive to their theoretical perspective, & the article does discuss some of this. But I very much want to avoid actually working on this article. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

as for 3r: In a situation where the others have manged to keep barely under 3rr, my idea of fairness would be to also give them lesser blocks,if I were to punish people, which I try to avoid. I consider 3rr inconsistent with blocks being used for prevention only, & I have so far never actually used it. See my comment at [28] My own impression is of a long string of POV edits, not a revert-war, though about to become one. If it continues, I will consider protecting the article for a day or two. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Aggrawal

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

Gerald Celente article needs admistrator attention

It's perverted by pro-Celente partisans (GwenGale, Laura289, now Celente himself apparently -- see Celente discussion page) who continually, systematically use it for advertising, who consistently violate WP's rules (reliable sources, no COI, no advertising, verifiability, etc etc). I sent you an email. I do not know what to do; I'm a neophyte editor, hard working, wanting to help, but the battling with Celente partisans for some kind of neutrality is wearying. Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

I made an extended comment there. Gwen is a reliable editor. Guard yourself against going on a crusade--you have made your point. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpfulness. I'm heeding your excellent advice. I'm leaving the GC article alone for a long time. And you're right, perhaps I'm slightly biased too. Again, thanks. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Anhel GmbH

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

Re:International Theatre Vienna

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRV:Alan Roger Currie

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

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

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

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

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

WikiThanks

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

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

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

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

Symphony CMS

Sorry to have wasted your time (validly) removing the speedy template from Symphony CMS. The article was deleted in January so I didn't remember the contents. The fact remains that, notwithstanding the expansion, notability not demonstrated in the article nor have I been able to establish it myself (I did a good faith search). So I have renominated it (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination)). If you disagree (or agree, for that matter), please opine.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

WuhWuzDat 01:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Allison

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No_on_3 (2009) Pierce county, Washington"

Why do you delete this with no notification?

because it was a blatant political advertisement, and thus qualifies as G11-promotional. Wikipedia may not be used for the purpose of promoting commercial products, or non-commercial causes. If you want to try again, write an article on the proposition, not the movement to oppose it, or the committee advocating opposition to it. Include references to reliable sources--newspapers, for example. I do not know if it will survive anyway, but it might have a chance. The responsibility for notifying you was not mine, but the person who nominated it for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

>>Although incomplete, it was not 'blatant' and it wasn't an advertisement. I didn't go into any arguments. It's a profile of an organization. But I suppose I had it backwards; putting the activity before committee. Since there's three charter amendments this year, though, there's two sides to each. Since there is activity of the public following the county council's action, I rate that higher for coverage. Look at my /PROJECTS/4 page if you think it's gotten better. Thank you. -- #TTiT# ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ The-Traveller-in-Tacoma • 08:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some suggestions on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

please comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#single_mention_in_a_foreign_language_tech_blog_to_show_notability:_reliable.3F - your objectivity, regardless of your decision, is requested. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

commented16

09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You made a small mistake

Please see User talk:NIHKZ. In the history, see the difference between my edit and your edit. Then have a look at the version before my edit, and you'll understand your mistake. Debresser (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, I left out the WP: . Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 14:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You used {{Page}} instead of [[Page]] and that caused the whole page to be transcluded. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination)

You have either edited Symphony CMS or you participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS. Please consider contributing your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphony CMS (2nd nomination). Regards, ^Bongo_matic 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

reguarding redirects

I wrote on another editors page the possibility of a RFC.[29] I know you were embrolled in all of this. I don't want to have hundreds of newly created WP:BATTLEs over redirects now.

The redirecting was supposed to stop these battles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Novels - Narnia Task Force

Hi! You would be glad to know that a new wikipedia ad has been created by Srinivas to encourage users to join Chronicles of Narnia Task Force. You can display that ad on your user/talk page too using the following code: {{Wikipedia ads|ad=190}}

Wikipedia ads	file info – #190

-- Alan16 (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Otechestvenniye Zapiski

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

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

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

BLP at Norman Davies

Re: [30] - I was never happy with that section, recently a chunk was deleted (see article's talk). While I am tempted to rv the anon, I do wonder if the section is BLP-compliant? Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the article's talk? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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

What do you think of this?

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

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

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

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

Opinion

Your opinion would be appreciated here. Thanks, Majorly talk 15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

well, you now have it. My opinion is that we need to reconsider the entire question of what we want to include in Wikipedia, and perhaps consider adding a new basic principle, of being encouraging to new editors. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - August 2009 Newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You may find this a useful argument in some deletion discussions

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

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

BSA_Troop_1_Frankfort,_Kentucky

Good Afternoon. I nominated this article for deletion as a group that does not show significance. You denied the speedy because it was a pioneering troop. The article itself says that the Troop is often confused with the first BSA troop and admits they really are not the very first troop; they merely share the same number. So it's not the pioneering troop and I think it still qualifies for speedy. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As I read it, it was the first troop in the US, though it was chartered under the British association. In any case, to pass speedy, an article only has to indicate some significance, which is a very low bar. Whether it actually is, is a question for the community at AfD. What is actually needed before taking it there, per WP:BEFORE, would be a real try at getting some more information. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion wanted re: Cultural memory

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "embodied memory" concept is I think mainstream, and since there are academic publications on it by several authors, it too cannot be considered fringe or obscure. (In fact, unlike the historiographic, it even makes a certain amount of sense to me. I think it is explained fairly well by the short article in the German Wikipedia; the Dutch one may also be helpful, but i cannot do more than guess at the contents.) The importance of Stewart's use of the term is unfamiliar to me, but she is clearly a major author, with multiple books from a major university press.[31]; I therefore cannot see how her work can be called fringe or obscure either.

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

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

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

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

Camps and safe houses

There are a couple of articles on training camps and a couple of article on safe houses like this one [32] at AfD. What do you think? Is there a way to include them or combine them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

commented there. Expand and retitle. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Might have had edit conflict, but I don't see your comment. ^Bongo_matic 06:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Universities

This redirect was wrong. Saint Petersburg State University used to be known as Leningrad State University named after Zhdanov. Leningrad State University named after Pushkin is another university (fairly non-notable and rarely heard of), which is known by this name right now (and Leningrad in its name refers to Leningrad Oblast). Colchicum (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you can add sufficient clarifying information to the article, so others do not make the same mistake. I had not known they kept the Soviet name for the region--interesting... DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Mega64 episode lists

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion tags

I see you removed this speedy deletion tag I placed on the article of Juan M Clouzet on August 14. I haven't been around, but when I checked today, I was kind of surprised. How is this article notable and where are any sources? (I did a quick check and nothing popped up on google) BrianY (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

to pass speedy it has merely to indicate some possible importance, and it indicates he was involved in the founding of a railroad line. Since then, additional material has been added. The requirements for speedy are deliberately very low, intended to weed out articles such as "He was a member of his high school football team and is now in college". As you say, the requirements for keeping an article are much higher. The article obviously still needs work--G Books lists 2 sources. I've left a note advising the author what to do to make it meet our standards. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion for Michael Barrett

You recently tagged Michael Barrett for speedy deletion. I've now tweaked the sentences some and have added new material to try to avoid the suggestion of copyright violation. When you have a chance, please take a look. If you have additional suggestions, please reply either here or on the article talk page. Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

much improved, so I removed the tag, but more is needed. You must do more than tweak, you must rewrite from scratch. Some of the later paragraphs come much too close. Paraphrase is still copyvio. Try to find some published books reviews of his books, and add them. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Speedy Deletion of Article on Turek Clinic

David -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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