User talk:DGG

p>_matic 04:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my view on the notability of murders and murderers

"murder is a mighty strong fact" — Samuel Johnson, 1768.

Despite what my favourite author says, murder/murderers these days are not necessarily considered sufficiently important to be notable at Wikipedia. Murders/murderers of multiple people are--when I came here 4 years ago, it was often successfully argued that ≥2 victims made them notable (I think that's about 10% of the total) --our standard seems to have risen, so I'd say it's now ≥3. Murdering in special conditions that excite human interest makes for notability-- murder in schools, or accompanied by torture, or committed in exceptional manners, or greatly disputed cases, or of (or by) those who are famous, and so on. (none of these apply here. )
Murderers who are executed are always notable, as I see it. That very few people actually are executed, even among murderers, makes the cases of particular interest & notability, and almost all the world considers such executions notable instances of barbarity. This is my fundamental position, but I no longer argue it , as the argument is very rarely accepted here. Executions under any special circumstances are however notable, even here, and the argument is accepted often enough that I will argue it.
This particular case does not quite fall into that category, as she has not yet been executed. But that she should even be sentenced to death is exceptional because of her status in one of the protected classes, and legally interesting, as there seem to be so few of the usually aggravating circumstances that the sentence appears a matter of particularly outrageous injustice, even as a sentence. A jury verdict like this with respect to an adult male in Florida and some other US states would not really be notable to the same extent, as it is relatively common. But a woman is normally given the benefit of the doubt , and here it seems she was rather the object of local prejudice. In southern states, local prejudice has a particularly ominous implication, as a continuation of lynching, that affects the way people look on it. (I'll put off for the moment the question of whether the articles should generally be on the murder or the murderers) DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that DGG. I think we have fundamentally differing views as to the notable elements relating to this and similar cases.

"that she should even be sentenced to death is exceptional because of her status in one of the protected classes". This is a factual inaccuracy, I believe. She wasn't pregnant when sentenced to death (nor was she even pregnant when charged—the chronology is pretty clear that she gave birth in March and was arraigned in April).
"murderers who are executed are always notable". Why should there be de facto notability for this class of individuals rather than letting the guidelines apply?
"she should ... be sentenced to death is ... legally interesting". This leads to the conclusion that it ought to be covered, not that she ought to be covered, or even that the case be covered. The case is not legally interesting (it provides no legal authority on any proposition of law). As you point out, the jury verdict is interesting, but it is an interesting fact about the Florida criminal justice system or jury process generally, but not about the specifics of the case or individual.

You have gone to lengths to explain that you don't think that tabloid-style coverage of the subject is appropriate, but what else can there be in an article focused on her or the case, rather than putting the verdict in the context of capital punishment in Florida (or generally)? ^Bongo_matic 01:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the Carr article, I think I suggested rewriting to change the emphasis at the AfD. We may not be that far apart on this particular article. That can often be the case in coming from different directions.

More generally, I just above argued why women should be considered a protected class for this purpose

I also explained why I think each executed criminal (at least in the 21st century) is notable. I recognize there may be an element of more judgment involved., but it's the moral judgment of most of the world, & whether it's my own is irrelevant. We can continue this on the talk p. of the essay i propose to write based on the above. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public Broadcasting Act of 1967

Hi David, I just wanted to say I am looking forward to having you help us work on our Wikipedia assignment. If there are any hints or advice you have, feel free to let me know. I will ask questions along the way too. I apologize for getting back to you now and have started to discuss on the article talk page.

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

Would you consider being my mentor?

Hello Mr. Goodman,

I am Arielle Parker, a student at Syracuse University, and I am currently in the class Transnational NGOS in World Affairs. As a class, we are participating in the program The TNGO Initiative and the U.S. Public Policy Wiki Project. I would be very grateful if you could be my mentor and allow me to come to you with questions (about Wikipedia editing) should the need arise.

Thank you so much for your consideration,

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

International Relations Class of 2012

certainly; but what topic specifically are you going to work on? If you haven't selected one yet, what have you been considering? DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am am planning on trying to flesh out the article about CARE (Relief Agency). If possible I would also like to contribute to the page about USAID; it seems to need a lot more structure though, admittedly, I have not delved into this with much detail. As of right now these are my primary focuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaparker (talk • contribs) 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you'll have enough to do with CARE. think about how you're going to proceed in general, and let me know. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Another expert who finds us unwelcoming

I wonder if you can help with another case of a subject-matter expert who has come to give us the benefit of his knowledge but collided with Wikipedia's standards and processes and is finding us unwelcoming. User MaxWyss (talk · contribs) is an extremely experienced and well-qualified seismologist - see his user page. He has written a paper at User:MaxWyss/Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide which was (rather prematurely) nominated at MfD as an "essay". In reaction to that he went to WP:REFUND ("I'm sorry that I am one of the leading experts worldwide.") His paper looks good stuff, well worth publishing somewhere, but unfortunately is not an encyclopedia article - a classic example of WP:SYNTH and also rather against WP:NOTHOWTO. I have left a note on his talk page explaining this, and have sorted out some minor problems caused by a username change and an all-caps title; but it all still seems rather negative and I am at a loss for anything more positive to say about how to proceed with his draft. Maybe you can do better: even some words of welcome and sympathy from you would help. It would be a pity to lose him. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly gone out of my way to emphasize to him that we welcome subject-matter experts here, and that he has nothing to apologize for in being an expert, although they are required to observe our other rules (specifically, in his case, WP:OR). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not getting at you, Mike, more at myself - having given my best advice on his talk page, it seemed to me that it was still negative, I cast about to think of a more positive angle, failed, and hoped DGG might be able to. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little different from than the usual. The article is not OR, but a summary that could easily become / encyclopedic with a little sourcing, instead of being written entirely out of his own knowledge. i do not consider it SYNTH, I doubt very much he goes beyond the published literature; I just consider it insufficiently sourced. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about Genetic Alliance

Hello, not sure where to answer your question - so am putting it here.

You asked about Genetic Alliance relationship to Genetic Alliance UK. There is no relationship. Genetic Alliance is 25 years old October 30, 2011, and has used the name for 25 years. Genetic Alliance UK informed us in 2010 that they were going to use the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfterry (talk • contribs) 19:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provident Personal Credit redirect

Hello DGG. You recently redirected the Provident Personal Credit (PPC) page to the Provident Financial (PF) page. I have looked into your comments and I completely understand the reasons why you did this. I have taken your comments on board regarding the need for references from 3rd party independent published reliable sources in the article and I have found numerous ones, including an article from Joseph Rowntree, that I am going to add into the content. You mentioned in your comments that PPC is a reasonable search term and I completely agree, is some respects it is probably a more popular search term than PF as PPC is the name that PF trade under and therefore the name that people associate with the service. If I included a number of 3rd party references and I undid the redirect would the article be OK or would it still be at risk of deletion? I would appreciate your feedback. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahjoanne123 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to mentor a small group of students

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

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

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

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

What journal articles should NOT contain?

David: Back when you wrote DGG's suggestions for what journal articles should contain. Your essay is mentioned on the WikiProject Academic Journals writing guide. With this background, I am wondering about WP articles that contain "Significant articles" section -- like this one:California_Law_Review. The authors of the significant articles do not like notable people and the articles written do not seem to have any impact on notable court cases. Is this an example of what an academic journal article should not contain. I'm looking for guidance in this regard. Thanks so much. --S. Rich (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

such sections should use an objective criterion. The one I prefer is very simple: most cited. (In law, I'd include citations from both journals and court decisions). You may be interested in a very recent paper: Donovan, James M. and Watson, Carol A. "Citation Advantage of Open Access Legal Scholarship" Univ. of Georgia School of Law Research Papers Series, no. 11-07, published March, 2011, [1] Other criteria are possible: papers that win awards, papers by famous authors. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like you to look something over...

There have been too many instances where the subsection WP:NFF of the guideline WP:NOTFILM has been treated as if it were an immutable and ironclad policy, rather than as a part of a guideline that like all others encourages treatment with common sense and allowances for occasional exceptions. In attempting to address these continued misconceptions, I have written the essay Wikipedia:Future Films. I would like you to look in and advise if you wish. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Howard Armstrong award

Hi DGG. I see you recently edited and removed a prod from Edwin Howard Armstrong award. The link you provided and the reason you removed the prod appear to relate to an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Communications Society award wheras the award that is the subject of this article is awarded by the Armstrong Memorial Research Foundation, making them seem like two different awards. Do you think I'm reading things right and this article should be deleted and maybe replaced with the IEEE award or I'm I missing something? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there were a number of similar awards prodded. I meant to look at all, & had them all open in tabs, but I only got to one or two & the rest got deleted by whoever checked them *assuming they checked, and didn't delete just because nobody had removed the prod; some admins do that & I think it irresponsible.) It is thus quite possible I commented on the wrong one, I will re-examine the entire group--after all, I did say sat my RfA that I wanted the tools to look at deleted articles, though most of the time I seem to use them for deleting articles myself. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear but there appears to be more than one Edwin Howard Armstrong award, nothing to do with the other four Armstrong awards I prodded. (as an aside, I have no reason to beleive the deleting admin didn't check, my own check prior to prodding found nothing significant) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore N. Kaufman

If you have access to more periodicals than I do can you help with the article on "Theodore N. Kaufman". He can use some help with quotes from articles behind paywalls. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

are there some sources in particular you'd want copies of? DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recrudescence from a speedy you declined back in 2009

See Talk:National Career Fairs. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ágnes Heller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glasgow University Conservative Association

FYI, Twinkle never created the nomination page. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

twikle seems to have become less reliable lately. I'll do it manually if it doesn't get fixed before I have a chance to get there. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we can't guess your rationale for nomination; you're the only one who can properly complete this. --Lambiam 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the listing from the AfD page and the template from the article so you can try Twinkle again. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was planning to do. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosario Parrino, Peter Gruenwald

I'm not sure how to use AFD, can you submit Rosario Parrino, Peter Gruenwald articles for me. The PROD's for each have been removed, both are not notable enough. The references found about Gruenwald are about his involvement in the Lufthansa heist. There is enough information about Parrino on others articles he is not notable. --Vic49 (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Kirk Kirkpatrick still a good article??

Hello again, DGG …

I was reviewing Category:Flagged articles and came across Kirk Kirkpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which you contested for a WP:PROD a while back … looks like a bunch of {{dead link}}s and some very sloppy editing that was probably intended for the Talk page … I'm Too Tired to try to clean it up now, but since you thought that it was worth saving, I figured I'd ping you. :-)

Happy Editing! — 71.166.156.113 (talk · contribs) _{01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

if you give it a check for replacement links, I'll try to do some rewriting. But, more exactly, I deprod because something might be worth trying to save, not necessarily that it can be saved. If something I deprod goes to AfD and gets deleted, that's fair enough, as long as it gets a good try at improvement first. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

A cupcake for you!

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

Sandusky (automobile company)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLAMcamp

Glad to meet you today at GLAMcamp! I look forward to receiving the material you mentioned.Trouver (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A notable book?

If you have time, could you check your usual sources for The Tower (crime novel)? Worldcat shows 67 holdings in Australia (author is Australian), 1 in US, 0 in UK. Google News as usual shows almost nothing; apparently, though, the book was condensed and serialized in the Sydney Morning Herald. Regular Google shows a smattering of reviews, although they all seem to be on unreliable sites (i.e., just random customer reviews). I can no longer access Amazon at work, so I can't check reviews there. I appreciate the help if you have time. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what normal holdings are for Australian fiction in WorldCat--I'm not sure how to interpret the numbers. Book Review Digest & Book Review Index show no reviews, and only one utterly trivial nonprofessional one for The Simple Death (crime novel); his historical works do have reviews. WorldCat however shows it was included in a Readers Digest Australia compilation [2], which might I think be some possible evidence for notability along with the Herald republication, but I need to check other authors they include, & I don't think that's necessarily enough as I do not know their standards. Amazon shows only one customer review, which is worthless. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, I tried looking up Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, obviously a notable book and one we can assume will be held by a very large number of libraries in any English speaking country. There's a few different editions, but of the two main ones I see, there are 59 for one version and 147 for another version. Looking up something a little more academic, The Color Purple has about 105 holdings in Australia. So, at 67, it seems like this may indicate some level of notability in Australia; however, I actually don't know how libraries go about choosing and acquiring books; for example, can an author/publisher donate books to libraries to increase exposure (would they?)? The Reader's Digest Australia is an interesting point, but also still borderline. Perhaps as a borderline case it's better to err on the side of keeping, although keeping an article with no citeable indication of notability does always bother me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These may not be the best comparisons. They are internationally famous books. What we need for comparison is novels by Australian writers, who are not famous, but notable in Australia with significant reviews there, and I would need to do some checking to select good examples. Public libraries in general buy books on the basis of reviews, known interest in previous books by the author, local authors, patron requests, and , sometimes in some genres, everything likely to be read by fans of these genres who will read everything in sight. The three principal genres this way in US libraries are mysteries, SF, and romance. As there have been no reviews yet, and the two books are his first novels (there are two previous historical books with modest reviews enough to establish him as a mildly notable author, but they aren't relevant here) I assume the libraries that have bought it have bought it on the genre consideration. We also need to take account the time from publication: as the book is '10, there is time for reviews by now. His other book is '11; the article for the first books was added soon after the publication of the second, which has one review. "Duffy is indisputably a writer to watch. He will soon be ranked alongside the likes of international behemoths Michael Connelly, George Pelecanos and Don Winslow. There is no higher praise.' Winsor Dobbin, Sun-Herald"-- I do NOT consider this as much of a positive review,as it might appear; reading carefully, it amounts to "not yet notable". The editor has worked on almost nothing else. The two indexes I used are not all that comprehensive for Australian fiction, but they do cover some of the possible sources.

I consider the default to be merge. There is nothing in the articles but plot summary--and, what is worse, plot summary of the teaser kind, characteristic exactly of the typical press release. I intend to merge them. If they become popular/much reviewed, or if he does become famous, they can be unmerged. I want to add that I myself think the GNG as applied to fiction is very weak indeed--two reviews in two newspapers is a very minimal requirement. It has led to is our practice of including individual works of fiction not on the grounds of anything resemble real-world importance, but on the basis of "I'm a fan" which is an open invitation to promotionalism, while completely ignoring most of what is actually important in the field. I personally consider avoiding promotionalism the critical justification for notability standards in general. A encyclopedia can talk about the relatively unimportant and be an encyclopedia , but once it starts including advertising, it becomes unreliable. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put. The author himself may be notable (not sure yet) based on his other work on Australian TV and as an Australian journalist, but I am happy with merging the books. I'd be happy to go through the formal Requested Merge process if you like, or you can do it, or one of us can just do the merge without discussing. I'm personally hesitant to do the latter. I've always felt odd that WP:BEFORE allows an editor to effectively blank a page without a deletion discussion or even the input of an uninvolved admin (like CSD and PROD), especially in a case like this where the merge isn't actually going to bring over most of the text in the book article. It feels awkward to me, like a way of bypassing at least the veneer of consensus. I mean, I know it's a legitimate move, but it just feels "off" to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too am concerned about the quirk in our procedures that allows destructive editing without any attempt at looking for consensus or asking for an opinion. the rationale for that, is that any edit can revert it, which is certainly true, but nonetheless can easily lead to conflict as disruption. The key rule is this respect is WP:BRD, which is treated as policy, though it is only an essay. I think it wrong except when used for something trivial or obvious. I do not do it. I think it should at the least be deprecated. Better, it should be treated like WP:IAR: it's available when really needed, but anyone who uses it is answerable if what they did lacks consensus. The proper rule for anything non-trivial should be PCE, propose, get explicit or at least implicit consensus, then edit. We sometimes say as a caution, BE BOLD, NOT RECKLESS—but anything Bold a person dislikes, they are likely to consider reckless. When I came here are saw we actually promoted BRD, I realized that this is a place which encouraged uncooperative behavior.

More specifically, having asked advice, since we both feel the same way, there's no real reason to ask further. If you haven't done it by tomorrow, I shall. I generally ignore Requested Merges, as anything controversial ends up at AfD anyway, and I cannot watch everything. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did the redirects; since both articles were just plot summaries, and the only cites were links to the publisher (which didn't even clarify publication dates) I didn't actually merge anything. In the process of cleaning up, though, I did find a good review of one of his non-fiction books; if there's more out there, that book may actually even qualify for its own article. I do think the author/journalist himself appears notable enough to not worry about. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note

In the Clifford Kubiak ANI thread you had mentioned you were concerned with protecting an article you had written yourself. Once you do have the new article up, feel free to drop me a note and I will add the protection for you if you'd like. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of most popular missing articles

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

Discussion at CFD:Science writing

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

Category:American novels by century

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

Well Written

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

An apple pie for you!

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

Books books books

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

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

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

RE: Natami

For sure! I've restored the deleted material for one user; I can put it up for you too, if you'd like. m.o.p 19:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

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

Again. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another friendly nudge. :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

books

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

email

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

Dazzpedian

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

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

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

You get a lot of messages!

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

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

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

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

Reply requested

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

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Adding_to_.28or_changing.29_WP:CSD.23A7

Please comment on Talk:Martin Ruzicka

Responding to RFCs

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

currency qy

I appreciated your warning on BLP concerning Robert Zoellick's bio. I see you're also an Ambassador. Can you use another mentee? I hope you can help me because a reliable stakeholder analysis predicted in 2004 a 90% risk that failure to resolve the issues now under consideration in Wikipedia will result in a currency war. I will be happy to share this stakeholder analysis with you and other background documentation. The former Chair of the World Bank's Audit Committee invited me yesterday to connect on LinkedIn.Currency1 (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is published, link to it on the talk p. If published, but in a confidential communication which you do not have authority to cite, it cannot be used until someone actually publishes it openly--whether or not they have the authority to do so is irrelevant, if published in a reliable source. If a blog posting, and it has been publicly and reliably sourced to an authority, it can be used as their opinion; link to it and explain. If a private communication or your own unpublished research, it cannot be used. I will look at the relevant talk p. DGG ( talk ) 15:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Qwyrxian (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A mediator from Mediation Cabal said my edits improved the Robert Zoellick article and requested additional sources, which I provided on the Robert Zoellick talk page several days ago. The editor who reverted my edits has not made any further comments. Under these circumstances, what do you suggest now?Currency1 (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actors

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

My CSD history

Hello there. You said in this edit that you could and would check my CSD history. I was accused (not by you) of knowingly and repeatedly misusing A7. It was very easy for that user to make those claims without providing any evidence. I asked that user to either provide evidence or to provide a retraction; s/he did neither! It's very easy to cast aspersions, and to call people's good names into question. I have been waiting for you to review my CSD history, and for you to confirm that those claims are totally false and without reason. I look forward to hearing, or should I say seeing, your review. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

will do tonight or tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I appreciate it. Advice and review regarding any other CSD categories would be very welcome too. All the best. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

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

Rescuing Samir Joubran

Hello again, DGG …

Happy Editing! — 70.21.24.28 (talk · contribs) _{03:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Dear Bi PolarAnon-IP (as it says on your user page--I'm revealing no secrets here) --in my opinion, Leaving a notice for someone that their article may either be copyvio or non-notable or violate the COI guideline is a remarkably nonspecific and unhelpful step. Leaving new users negative messages about their articles, and signing them "Happy Editing! is , in my opinion, insulting. And, again in my opinion, your advice is likely to be taken more seriously by those users if you actually do use an ordinary user name, instead of insisting on editing as an ip. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<Sigh!> The very last thing that the {{Flag-editor}} template says is,

The point is that it's much friendlier than the WP:CSD warning, which has been their only contact, and which does not invite a dialog. — 70.21.24.28 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Change it from "I realize that" to "I apologize if". :-) — 70.21.24.28 (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, if your point is that the preexisting standard notices are so unfriendly as to be counterproductive, I would certainly agree with you, and will be very glad to cooperate with you (or anyone) in any good faith effort to improve or replace them. I have learned that people read only the fist few lines, espeically if it seems hostile, and it is better to be brief than to cover all situations. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Talk:Journal of Cosmology

Could you take a look, please? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

looking--it may take a while, as I want to examine the actual journal carefully. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7X24

I agree with your close on the Atheism 3.0 AfD, but in my opinion it might have been better to wait the full 7 X 24 hours, considering it was ca contested discussion. Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 6 then 12 hours early, etc. This is one place where it matters. This definitely does not mean I disagree in the slightest with the close, and I certainly do not plan to take exception to it, but just a reminder. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Of course I am in full agreement - I closed the original discussion to extend AfD from 5 to 7 days. It is something I have advocated myself. When I closed that AfD the time date said 7 days, and I didn't look further. It might be helpful to have a similar date notice as is carried on the Prod template:

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days. Please check the history to see when this template was added. / This message has remained in place for seven days and so the article may be deleted without further notice.

Changing the wording to:

The discussion may only be closed if this message has remained in place for seven days, unless the discussion meets the criteria in either WP:Speedy keep or WP:Speedy delete. Please check the history to see when this template was added. / This message has remained in place for seven days and so the discussion may be considered for closing or relisting.

Do you think it's worth starting a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken, there actually was such a template there for a while. In any case it would presumably be easy enough to do it. The only technical problem I see is that presently relisted debates do not have to be open a full 7 days extra, but perhaps the solution is to change that also. Let's bring this to WRT:AFD, The basic reason is to keep things orderly and prevent people from making errors. I have a clock overlay on my computer screen to display GMT when I work on Wikipedia, and it helps, but it still takes some thinking when the day changes. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll start a discussion - linking to this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Life

thanks for this. Seems logical to me too. Yes, what has drawn me back somewhat is the recent AfDs on museum, cultural, etc. stuff. Hope all is going well for you. StarM 17:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

recent RFC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you kindly

Thank you very much for your participation my RfA. Apologies for the lack of Wikilove formatting like I'm using for my other thankspam, but I want to say something a little more complex here, so it will format better this way. As I admitted, you were absolutely right that I screwed up the A7 question. And, as you pointed out...seriously, how was that even possible, given that it's such a common RfA topic, I knew I was under review, and thus who knows what I'll do in the field? And you're totally right. I have no idea how I let the most obvious part of the question slip past me, and got focused on other things that didn't even matter. And I feel especially bad, because yours was support I had really been hoping to have. Why? Well, your work here really impresses me. My interactions with you on AfDs and other places were the first to start to substantively change my opinions about deletionism/inclusionism. At one point, I actually called myself a deletionist; now, I like to think that I'm neither (as, I believe, are you), seeking instead to make individual decisions about individual articles. I also feel like I'm less quick to jump to an AfD on older articles, and more likely to take more steps, give the original/regular editors more time to make improvements, etc. Seeing your work on AfDs and on improving articles helped me realize that we really all should have the same goal: making the articles we have as good as possible, and deleting them only after we've tried to fix the problems and really decided that they are, ultimately, unfixable.

With that being said, if at any time you happen to see me making bad decisions, or even questionable ones, please feel free to step in and tell me to shape up. Furthermore, if you have any particular suggestions about how I might make sure to "get it right", please tell me and I will happily study, review, etc. Of course, I'll be reviewing all of the policies and procedures again before taking any actions, and for the foreseeable future I'll be doing any deletions with the mop in one hand and the guidelines in the other, but I certainly welcome any help that you have. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have my support in every way that matters. Having my support in a real way is not the same thing as my voting support at the RfA. Sometimes I feel the need to call attention to an issue at the cost of not appearing to support a person. In such cases I generally write various drafts of my comments (as I did here), taking different positions, before making a decision which one to post. Every time that happens I remain unsure if I took the right course to have taken, I think you are understand well enough not to hold it against me; I would feel very sorry otherwise, and conclude I made the wrong choice. (I would have felt even sorrier if it had prevented your selection, and if I thought it would have done so, I would have posted differently).

As for future assistance, you will find I am much more willing to criticize those I trust to understand, than those who would take it poorly. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that as well. Your oppose was actually well written, and to me represented a very clear "ethical" stance (that understanding CSD is something all admins should be able to do). Its even a stance that makes sense to me; had the CSD issue gained momentum, I would have willingly accepted a consensus against promotion and then spent the next 6 months getting it right. Now, I'll just have to make sure I get it right as I do it. I'm going to start in slowly, dealing only with obvious cases (like, I doubt I'll have much trouble identifying a G10, or even an A7 that says "My girlfriend is the best!")...no need to rush anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

So you think that a person who has only one film credit, to a film that has not even been released yet, is a claim of notability? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would tend to mean that we can't delete anything via WP:BAND, since having sung a song is a claim of notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what article? It would depend on the film and the role whether the claim is credible. If it is a self-produced film, it might not be a credible assertion. I do more work with books than films, and having written a book, other than a self-published book, is considered a credible assertion. Music is not my strong point, but if the Band has not recorded anything yet, then their claim is not credible either, and we delete a good number of such garage bands a day, for even people like me can tell. And I remind you that it does NOT have to be a claim of notability. It just has to be a claim to some possible good faith credible significance or importance, which is much less than notability. Deliberately so, in order that we not delete potentially improvable articles. What you want to use is PROD, as both I and another administrator suggested on your talk page . It works very nicely--they either get improved, or they get deleted. If a prod tag is removed without improvements made, then use WP:AFD. It works very well too in getting rid of what is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Matt Dunnerstick, which is the article TParis and I were talking about in the section of my Talk page that you commented on. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented at the AfD , not notable , but not a CSD A7, DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 03:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

BTW, do you know why some pages, like yours and also Wikipedia talk:Non-free content amongst others, take so long to load and then give me an "unresponsive script" error message, but load after I tell the script to stop? ww2censor (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

happens to me too, mainly with Safari. I suspect the Wikipedia Javascript loads very slowly. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Yeshu

Responding to RFCs

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Responding to RFCs

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Imperial Band

I've recreated this article, which was deleted in 2006 as "(was put on speedy for nn band; looks like nonsense to me.)", perhaps by someone unfamiliar with UK brass bands. They have recorded, won championships, have a long and illustrious history, etc. Could you userfy for me the previous article, in case there's anything useful in it? Thanks. PamD (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it as the oldest item in the edit history--seemed simpler. [3]. I see no reason why it shouldn't stay there to give credit for the earlier work. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think the earlier version includes anything I want to copy in to the current version. Could you remove it, please, so that the edit history of the current version reflects its history from when I created it yesterday? Did I really not save any versions of it for the first hour of work on it? Perhaps I was over-anxious not to create a feeble stub which someone would speedy again? Thanks. PamD (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iagree with you, and shall right now do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but... the way it looks now makes it look as if I over-wrote a 5-year-old article entirely, with edit summary "info re recordings"! (OK, so anyone looking at the history might wonder how it hadn't been speedily deleted after nomination for speedy). Could you please revert it to the situation before you did anything - ie the old version, having been speedily deleted, had disappeared completely, and I started a new article from scratch? I only asked to have a look at the old version in case there was anything useful (refs, cats, etc) which I ought to include in the new one. (And I'm not sure that the old article's version of the Rothwell side of the history is right: I gather there was a major bustup between drinkers and teetotallers so that the Rothwell band split into "Temperance Band" and "Old Band", one of which then merged with the Imps, but not sure which!) Thanks for your help. PamD (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I hope I got it right this time. DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - my first few incremental edits are still lost, but at least it shows that I created it. And I think I've even got the Rothwell history sorted out now - so added it to Rothwell Temperance Band too for good measure. Pam

Aether mod

I am not truly sure for the reasoning for your deletion of this page (Aether mod). I am not related to the Aether mod or the person who created said aether mod page. The person who made that page placed it has placed it within the wrong area, its place should be along with the Minecraft (By "Notch" and Mojang AB) page. You've stated yourself as a librarian which I find to be knowledgeable, helpful and well learned. I do not know all things and subjects within, I do not try to make myself look like I do either. Should one really throw out book just because it was in the wrong place? I believe the information on that page could have been helpful. It is a popular link on google and therefore must recieve some amount of traffic. It's significance was the relation it had with minecraft, a game that has expanding quite a bit since it's initial release. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_mod (Aether mod page) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft (minecraft)

  68.105.233.107 (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Minecraft is very highly notable and even I know that. But not everything connected with Minecraft is significant, and being connected to Minecraft is not a claim of significance. Being a mod of a famous game is not a claim of significance. Being mentioned in a Minecraft forum is not a claim to significance, & there was nothing better in the article and I can find nothing better on the web. Can you show me one mention outside a Minecraft forum, and not connected to the authors of the mod? (the techunwrapped description reads as PR-- and even says at the bottom it is a Press Release, and therefore not independent). DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about deletions (another admin)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belatedly contested PROD

I see that you undeleted Vach Lewis, but for some reason did not restore the edit which PRODDED it. I have restored that edit, as it should be on record that the article has been the subject of a contested PROD, since that makes it ineligible for another PROD. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually, that was pretty stupid of me, because all I meant to do was remove the prod. For some reason I didn't think of the re-prod issue. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your thoughts please :-)

Hi DGG, could you please have a look at this issue and share your thoughts on it? Thanks --DeVerm (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

afd is designed for this sort of thing--though I am likely to have no real opinion on the subject, others will. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Beckwith

Hello DGG,

I agree with you 100% that this article should be deleted under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No compromise on the bottom line. Here, we are dealing with a user who is almost, but not quite, a single purpose account. Six months ago, this user reverted vandalism to George Clooney. Almost certainly, this user is someone close to this little girl who was killed in a car accident a week ago. So, I take exception to your use of the word "pathetic" in the AfD debate. Can't we explain why the article should be deleted while still selecting our words carefully so as not to further hurt someone trying, in all good faith, to add an article that we both agree doesn't belong here? In my view, there is always room for compassion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be difficult to explain why something really and genuinely important to an individual may yet not be encyclopedic. I used pathetic not to denigrate, but in the sense of pathos = emotional, emotionally rather than intellectual significant. Because it's used in the negative sense also, it probably was not a good choice of words, and I'll try to find a bette expression. I thank you for making me aware of it, because this is something important to me also. Some of our standard terms are unnecessary unsympathetic; there are some words and phrases we should avoid, not just in dealing with articles on people, but on other things, which can be equally emotionally important: for example, instead of "not notable" — I try to say "not notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia". instead of "not significant, or "unimportant" I usually say "not of significance to the general public who would use an encyclopedia." or "though important, not relevant to the purposes of an encyclopedia.", or "not what most people would expect to find in an encyclopedia.". Even those with good faith emotional involvement will usually recognize with care that an encyclopedia is not necessarily the place for the material they care about, once they are reminded that Wikipedia is , after all, an encyclopedia. The term "encyclopedia" does still have a connotation of "general interest from an abstract and impersonal point of view", and most people will accept this in the end. But it's all too easy in dealing with material not appropriate here to fall into bureaucratic coldness, and I am not exempt from this; other people can always judge the import of one's words better than one can judge ones own. The general rule holds, that if what you say is misunderstood, the problem is with how you said it. All writers require the help of an editor, and here, with no formal editing authority, we must help one another. Being one's own editor is like being one's own lawyer, and the proverb holds, that he who would be his own lawyer has a fool for a client. I hope everyone will do as you, and correct me when i make a mistake--to the extent I may be less of a fool that some others here, it's because I'm aware I make errors. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your thoughtful and perceptive response, and your adjustment to the AfD comment. By the way, it is clear to me that you are far from a fool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lalla Latifa Hammou AFD

- Lalla Latifa Hammou AFD

New york new york so good you vote commented keep twice. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed it. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Hartmann

Most of the !votes were entered after the article was redirected - and all of the !votes eplicitly deal with the video and its notability (as that is the basis of the article). In that light it seems a bit of a beuro-creep to close that as "keep" (when it is clearly delete) on procedural grounds that it has to be under the new article name :S I encourage you to re-open it, or close it properly. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reverted & Relisted. I think I did it right the first time, but it isn't important one way or the other. If any cleanup is needed, pls do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EU projects

Hi, the following EU projects are at AfD: Adaptive Services Grid, Discovery Project, European Robotics Research Network, European integrated hydrogen project, GENESIS – Groundwater and Dependent Ecosystems, ISTAG, Insemtives, PARSIFAL Project EU, PRoVisG, SALERO, Single European Sky ATM Research, WHOQOL-DIS, and Wireless Access Platforms for Electronic Communications Services Management. That's actually a bit more than I realized myself, but still only a small fraction got dePRODded. In a few days, I go through some more of them. It's slow going, because I check any links/references given, but fortunately (for me, if not for WP), many have no references and only a link to a (sometimes non-functional or outdated) homepage. I only take them to AfD if they are de-PRODded, though. --Crusio (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They appear quite a mixture of the clearly indefensible, with some that need some discussion of appropriate guidelines

I've given a discussion of what I consider the key problem at one of the AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adaptive Services Grid [4]. I think there is a problem in finding applicable criteria, and that a more general discussion is needed. This is another case where the GNG depending on the manner one interprets it, is either much too inclusive or much too exclusive, and thus can be used to justify whatever one wants. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll give it some thought and respond at the ASG AfD. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your librarian expertise is requested

I was NPP patrolling, and found Juloos. The problem is, the book is in Hindi. WorldCat finds it under the name Julūsa; if you search for that, on page three of the results here, I see it listed 3 times; 2 are distinct--one in Texas, one in the UK (no additional results when I copy and paste what I presume is the Hindi name in, either). I don't think there's an article on hi.wikipedia, but, of course, I'm just guessing by copying and pasting and assuming their interface works the same as ours. How do we determine the notability of a non-English book that's over 40 years old, that may or may not have ever been translated into English.... Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I left a note with the article creator to see if they've got any info. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India is a major problem, because there is no internet accessible union catalog to correspond to WorldCat, and no online periodical indexes. And no US library really has an adequate collection of print sources. But I see from the link you give many more than 3 sources. I see 25 at least. Your display setting is truncated, probably because you never entered your location--if so, it shows only the first listed holding that cataloged the book. 23 worldCat locations -- all the US university libraries that have some sort of Indian languages collection -- for an 1965 Hindi novel that count is a good many. There are more than 3 entries, see [5] -- you get that p. by clicking "show all editions and formats". Looking at that p. I see it has reached 6 editions, with the latest being 1997. That's a rough criterion of possible notability The author seems highly notable, based on the WP article on him, which does have references. One of his books was made into a film. There is also the page [6] which you get by clicking the "Find more information about ..." link at the bottom of the catalog record. I'll add the worldcat material to the article for WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice

Could you perhaps have a look at this article? There are obvious problems with the journal which has been criticized for being biased towards a certain political point of view. Nevertheless, I think the lead is unduly biased but was reverted within minutes after changing it. Perhaps I'm wrong, so I'd appreciate your opinion (see also my comment on the article's talk page). Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yak Formation Team

G'day from Oz; the 'ref' you added to Yak Formation Team has nothing whatsoever to do with the formation team in NZ. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops. My geography is slipping. I'll remove the quote. User prod or AfD as unverifiable. DGG ( talk ) 14:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Student Senate

Dear DGG, would it be possible to send you an email ? I am sorry to say I am not able to find your email address.Peter Vonke (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2

Hi DGG. You participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 earlier this year. Several months after the MfD was closed as "delete", Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) has recreated the page with blog-like material. I have asked admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2 to delete the page per the spirit of {{db-repost}} but none seem willing to. Several have suggested that the page be renominated for deletion at MfD. Because of the bad-faith accusations towards myself, I think it is best for me not to initiate the discussion. Vitriol was directed at GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) who initiated the previous MfD and who engaged Timeshift9 in discussion at User talk:Timeshift9#Your userpage 2 regarding his current user page. I believe it is best that neither GorillaWarfare nor I initiate the MfD. If either of us started an MfD, accusations of harassment and wikihounding would muddy the discussion and detract from a discussion of the policies regarding user pages.

DGG, would you review User:Timeshift9 and determine if it violates your interpretation of WP:NOTBLOG and WP:NOTSOAP? If it does, as someone who has had minimal involvement at the MfD and with the current iteration of the user page, would you initiate the MfD? If you are uncomfortable with becoming involved with this, I understand. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went back over the whole thing & re-read the various versions. The current page is not as objectionable, and I am not sure an mfd would succeed. I would probably once again say to delete, but it might be better to let the matter rest. Perhaps he simply should be urged to make it a subpage /politics. That he re-created it shows it matters to him; that he improved it, that he is willing to improve it further. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the page is shorter it will, in time, grow to be as long as the deleted version. The deleted version began as a short blog and then grew to one that spanned several pages. I see the same thing happening here. I do not see it as improvement from the deleted revision because the page still violates WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTSOAP, and WP:BLP. Would you re-read the third and fourth paragraphs of the user page, where Timeshift has some very negative criticism about a politician with a surname of Abbott? ("how can any self respecting Liberal be happy to jettison ALL policy and belief consistency in the name of regaining government") Such a statement, of which there are many on the current version of his user page, does not belong anywhere in the userspace. In the sixth paragraph, he talks about a "Mr Wrecker". Cunard (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the past there has been quite enough conflict here on Australian politics and the editors who work in that area, without raising issues that are not related to article content. From at least my US pt of view, nothing here amounts to a BLP violation, considering the subject is a politician & it's user space. It's just personal opinion. When I noticed the ANI last night, I checked the p. & judged it borderline and therefore not worth comment one way or the other. Seeing the ANI, I checked the p. yesterday before I saw your note,, and decided it wouldn't be worth comment. The fuss about it makes it more important than it really is. You wanted a relatively uninvolved view, you've got one. And if you think it might look like wikihounding if you did it, how would it look any the less so if I did it because you asked me? DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at ANI. Cunard (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Bgwhite's talk page.
Message added 20:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bgwhite (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV comment formatting

Did you mean to use quite so much italics in this comment? I would "fix" it, but I'm not sure where you meant for the emphasis to begin or end. --RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management

The article creator has left a message on my talk page stating that this journal is included in EBSCOhost. Do you think that is sufficient to establish notability? Apparently there is nothing else... --Crusio (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there's a simple answer:no. The only real qy. about notability is the article on the publisher. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Did you see JzG telling James Cantor that his alleged COI prohibits him from editing any BLPs related to his academic field? Didn't the AN discussion after the last round actually repudiate JzG's stance on this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes,he may, but I personally wish he would avoid close associates or opponents. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Student Senate bis

Dear DGG, you post on your WP biography you discuss matters via email. Where can one find your e-mail address ?Peter Vonke (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EMAIL. the first step is for you to enable your wikipedia email, which you do from the first screen of your user preferences page. You get sent an email to confirm it, and after that you email is active. When you go to my user page or my user talk page, in the "toolbox section on the left, one of the items will be : email this user. But if you just want to ask me what will let your organization have an article, I can only tell you by email what I tell you right here; references providing substantial coverage to show notability from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. the links in the previous sentence explain the meaning of the terms. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girlsounds

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knight's Bridge

My understanding is that Article for Deletion discussions are not normally speedy kept when the nominator "withdraws" if there are delete expressions. Is that different from your understanding? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not automatic. In my view, it depends on the nature of the other delete !votes. If they just "per nom" or are addressed adequately by the comments of the nominator when they withdraw, I think a speedy keep is justifiable. if they have raised another issue, then the discussion should be either continued, or, sometimes, restarted on the other issue. In this case, I thought all the objections had been met. If you do not think so, either I could re-open, or you could start a new AfD that would take into account the discussions at the first one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knight's Bridge. I suggest you consult with Valfontis first--articles such as this are his specialty, He can give a more thoughtful opinion than i can. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an "I don't agree" sort of question, just a more general "open to other views" one. Thanks for answering. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question about a question I can't answer

I'm hoping for some options. First, Cantor asks me a direct question, by name[7], then he quickly deletes my response[8]. While not at all surprising, this seems marginally uncivil. I don't see a way to respond visibly to his question that wouldn't be cited as evidence for some "vendetta"[9]. If he doesn't want an answer, he should at least retract the question. Could I trouble you for your thoughts? BitterGrey (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well, it seems you have now managed to call attention yo your comment. But as anyone who reads it can tell, instead of answering his question, which was to confirm the letters, you made 2 very definite personal attacks on him, both in the letter quoted, and in your comment. Personal attacks off-wiki with respect to Wikipedia editing are harassment, just as much as on-wiki. Accordingly, I need to request you stay away you from his talk page under any circumstances. BTW, he should not have posted your letter to the subject, & I shall ask him to remove it, unless you give permission, which you can do so here. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's still asking a direct question to me, by name, on his talk page[10]. (For contrast, I'll point out a recent example where an issue involving me was discussed there: I took it elsewhere because there weren't open, specifically addressed questions to me there[11].) Per AGF I won't ask for speculations about why he is doing this if he doesn't want a response, nor will I ask for speculations about why he posted the letter for all to see if he minded the contents at all. He seems capable of removing an attachment. Does it still count as harassment if he publishes it himself? You might want to give some thought to why he would do these things before rewarding such behavior again.

As for confirming the contents of the letter, I can only confirm that I sent an email, and have not yet received a reply.

By the way, thanks for synchronizing your language between locations. BitterGrey (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ernest Shackleton

Responding to RFCs

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I have your input, please?

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

Domain Registry of America

You recently deleted a redirect from their name to Domain Slamming on the grounds it was for defamation. However, the history of the subject here (now gone?) suggests otherwise. The company had their own extensive entry detailing the controversies and other facts, the domain slamming part then moved to domian slamming (removing it from the article), then the article is gone, then the redirect. I understand the rationale behind the last one when seen by itself, but it looks, at least to me, like a systematic roundabout blanking of reasonable information that brings up the question of good faith on one or more editors. Or is it unintentional coincidence? Any insight into this or suggestions about a possible revert to the original article? Ken JP Stuczynski (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

even if company X has engaged in disreputable practice YT, redirecting their name to the subject Y is prejudicial. They are presumably not the only party who has engaged in that practice. If this were the primary thing the company was known for, and also if they should have been the only significant company known for the practice, and if it were documented very reliably in the article, only then might there conceivably be reason to have a redirect, though I still would be very reluctant to do it. The argument would have to be over these factors--without all three it would clearly be excessive weight. Without the inclusion of information about them in the article, it amounts to unsourced defamation. As you suggest, I will check the original articles, including the deleted one. . DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked. It is clear they were not the only company involved, so the redirect is inappropriate. It's like redirecting a particular non-notable fraudster to Fraud, or even a particular non-notable murderer to Murder. For a living person it of course is absolutely wrong, for but even for a deceased person or for a company it's not acceptable. I see the article on the company was deleted only once, and only under WP:Speedy A7, no indication of notability, which was correct with respect to the article at the time. I do not see the claimed consensus for the redirect on the now deleted article talk page. The bare redirect is inadmissible, so I shall restore the article, after User:Hm2k has an opportunity to comment. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your thinking. The redirect by itself was improper, though I think the intention was to maintain continuity with leftover content from the original article after it had been moved. As for noteriety, the litigation and public exposure across national boudaries makes a case for inclusion not overly tenuous I think. Ken JP Stuczynski (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kleinplatz

Hi. Regarding the emails, I have hidden them in a hide-show box at BLPN, as at least an interim measure (I'm editing via iPhone today which means I make more mistakes and do things slower). I am not intimately familiar with pertinent policies regarding disclosure of these emails, and I would not object if someone more familiar with policy redacts some info (such as email addresses), and/or submits an oversight request.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

good first step. I'm no longer acting as an intermediary or neutral party in this area. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About the Koljo Karagiosov AfD

Hi DGG!
David, you had a quiet word to me about (1) how WP:A3 tags should and should not be used, and (2) requested I withdraw this AfD on my talkpage.

First of all, thank you for not giving me a very stern reprimand about my blatant misuse of WP:A3 tags on the Eliiva article series. Please go ahead and do so - I thoroughly deserve it. I should have known better.
As for the AfD, yes I could have worded the nomination better, but without questioning your judgement in any way, I still stand by my nomination.

Pete--Shirt58 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's not my style to give stern reprimands, and I never get bothered by people making errors, just by those persisting in them. As you say, we continue to disagree on some of the issues. BTW, I made just now a comment at the AfDon how to work with translating the sources. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya AFD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webinos

Hi, I have commented on your !vote in this AfD and am curious as to you opinion. --Crusio (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a follow-up comment now. --Crusio (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bitlis

I like your formulation in the context. Once the AfD closes if no one beats me to to it, ill do it. I also thought about "Battle for Bitlis", a descriptor rather than a title, like what "Battle Of" tend to be in milhist.--Cerejota (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Spider Ledesma

Responding to RFCs

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hi DGG. Some time ago, you were very helpful with regard to Confluence (journal). Well, there's another journal I'd like you take a look at. Here [12] I added as much as I can, but as your essay states, the GNG here at WP seems to hinge on loose views of many. Hopefully, this journal, which I think fulfills notability and is established, makes the cut. The article probably needs to be wikified to, requiring someone with more proficiency than me (not saying much) but in the meantime...thanks! Jimsteele9999 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Porcelanosa

This obviously notable Spanish ceramics firm was deleted from wikipedia. Can you restore it. I can't believe it was an "advert". If this is actually the case please restore it to my user space and I'll sort it. It should not have been speedied.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you ideally should first ask Fastily, the deleting admin. Though not exactly an advertisement, it needs much work. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

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

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

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

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

Human Services – Board Certified Practitioner

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

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

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

Speedies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parsifal EU

You participated in the discussion about deleting PARSIFAL Project EU, now on that articles talk. Perhaps you can answer questions I asked the one who closed - no response - and the one who suggested (moving). For the moment - unpleasantly surprised on a Saturday afternoon after days of no progress in the discussion - I redirected the link to the FP7 projects. What else could I do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Othar

I see that Jon Othar has been recreated after a deletion discussion over a year ago here. In that AfD you mentioned that someone might want to start over on the article. Since I have not seen the original version I do not know if this is a valid G4, though it does look like a cut and paste recreation. The user name of the creating editor also suggests that this might be another autobiography. Can you have a look and let me know your opinion? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a somewhat improved version. The last ref. is new, and the extensive promotionalism about diet in the original article was removed. However, I continue to be unable to identify the claimed academic papers. Nothing in worldcat, and the Icelandic National library catalog is not accessible at the moment. The original article was deleted as a combination of not notable and promotional , after I admitted I was unable to improve it. Still holds, so I will G4. If the papers can be documented so citations can be looked at, it will be worth reconsideration. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Gurudwara Dashmesh Darbar Sahib

Hi DGG. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurudwara Dashmesh Darbar Sahib (New Jersey), you wrote:

First of all, the deletion nomination is incorrect: our standard is notability, which is much much less than fame.

Just so you know, the comment about "famous" was made by User:Shroffameen, a relatively new editor who is still learning how to use Wikipedia properly. I'm having to clean up after him a lot. The original nominator's statement (User:CapMan07008) was above that. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I adjusted my comment accordingly DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Rauscher (2nd nomination)

Dear DGG, I noticed you (re-)deleted the little article on Elizabeth Rauscher. I think this might be a bit unfortunate. She is very mentioned briefly in Hugh Gusterson, Nature 476, 278–279 (18 August 2011) doi:10.1038/476278a Published online 17 August 2011 [13] the review of the book How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival David Kaiser W. W. Norton: 2011. 372 pp. $26.95, £19.99. and although many of us would find her later stuff fringe (to say the least) and the article was a bit over promotional, I suspect there might be enough to be found for notability. This quote seems to me to suggest there might be something there."This meant that some of the key work in quantum mechanics in the 1970s and 1980s was done by a motley crew of young physicists, who worked largely outside universities and published in obscure journals such as Epistemological Letters — “a hand-typed, mimeographed newsletter”. They included Elizabeth Rauscher, Jack Sarfatti, Fred Alan Wolf, Saul-Paul Sirag, John Clauser and Fritjof Capra. The centre of their intellectual universe was the San Francisco Bay area. Many were associated with the Fundamental Fysiks Group, an open discussion group about quantum mechanics that started meeting in 1975 at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California." Anyway just wanted to register my concern - but best wishes anyway (Msrasnw (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

there might be something there. I'll userify it again. to you, if you can follow up, by first removing the promotionalism and then looking for similar discussions (and by checking if the others mentioned are notable). those were certainly the days for mimeographed newsletters, and for good people at Berkeley going on to do odd things there and afterwards. Is the group conceivably notable? We could do a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best not to userfy it to me as I have add a run in with one of its authors. I'll perhaps start a new one if I can get access to the book at some time in the future. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)) PS: The Group is here Fundamental_Fysiks_Group#Fundamental_Physics_Group[reply]

I feel stupid for not looking. I will now make a protected redirect. If you ever want to work on it, I'll unprotect on request DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid - and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

See below--with two requests from people I respect, it seems simpler to reopen and also allow editing. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archana Sharma (2nd nomination)

Hello, I'm leaving you a message regarding your comment at the AFD entry of Archana Sharma where you said that my comment was an "irrelevant reason" and "Google and Yahoo was not sufficient enough for a AFD". How is a search engine not sufficient to search for a biography? Scientists may be needed for their work and not for their biography but because those sources that are cited in the article aren't clarifying which sentence they're the source of, it's hard to tell what is citing what. SwisterTwister talk 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Jsfouche's talk page.
Message added 01:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

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

Elizabeth Rauscher

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

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

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

Trivial...

I know and you're right. But I have already done several rewrites for this editor and was getting a bit tired of it... Sorry about that. --Crusio (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We will teach him--I hope. I'll give it a try also. Even if we don't, they only publish a few journals. I need to check out whether these are actually the main canadian journals, as I 've never heard of the publisher. DGG ( talk ) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other articles of this editor, I have removed claims like "most important Canadian journal" and such. Unless there are independent sources for such a claim (which we know all-too-well hardly ever exist), we should just keep it neutral. --Crusio (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually, its fairly easy to show from either circulation figures, IF, or Worldcat , or in more detail from the full JCTR data tables, because there aren't many of them. I left them it under the assumption I will soon get to it. (I suspect they may be the only significant national journals in the subjects), There's a developing patten in specialties where the various previous national journals in a country consolidate to have one research jl with a hope of international standing, leaving others as local professional magazines. I'm pretty sure this is true in Canada specifically. This isthe sort of exercise I've sometimes assigned library school students.

But some of these are pretty specialized and probably the only Canadian journals on this subject, making "most important Canadian journal" pretty meaningless... --Crusio (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and when I determine that, I will change the wording. I tend to work incrementally, despite the danger of forgetting to come back and do something. Crusio, I think you should know I do it right. The only real difference we have with journals is I'm more likely to want to include all the various journals from a society, which I think helps avoid confusion. And I'm a little more flexible with indexing services and stuff on the web only. DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, formulated clumsily, I know you do things right! I was just giving my opinion about these specific journals. --Crusio (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITECGROUP

Can I start a new chat re my page you deleted? --southwiki —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

At your request there, I have moved the page to User:Southwiki/Itec Group for rewriting. Ask me to take a look at it in a day or two. If you decide that the article cannot presently meet our standards, you can facilitate matters by placing at the top a line reading : {{db-author}} & it will be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Puerto Rican scientists and inventors

Since you commented in the AfD, I wanted to ask if you know of a way to userfy without losing hsitory, while still keeping the original article (basically to fork the content without a move). I feel there is a lot of material here than can be rescued for an article on the History of Science in Puerto Rico and perhaps even History of invention in Puerto Rico, besides the list stuff, but I want to work with attribution. Any help would be much appreciated.--Cerejota (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, this is done by copying and pasting, while maintaining attribution: the directions are at [14] if the article is not kept, this is done by undeleting userifying and editing. If you want to try this while the article is under consideration, copy and past, and then it can be merged later if the article is kept with a proviso of being repurposed, or, much easier, the kept article edited to conform to your draft. As all the changes would be by you, they wouldn't have to maintain attribution if you duplicated them. I'll make a proposal at the AfD which may be what you have in mind. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
Watching out for the class as a whole
Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

please review new page

Hello DGG: Would you please review a page I have drafted? Full disclosure: I tried to post this page previously and it was deleted by another administrator. After I get it in shape I'll run it by him for approval. The page is in my sandbox on my user page. The page in question is one of a series of three related pages. When this page was originally deleted I worked on the second page, which was ultimately posted as Animal People; I have reduced the original (deleted) page by about 25%, added many internal links, and otherwise improved it and I believe it's ready to go. I would appreciate your comments and help. Thanks. Woodlandpath (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comments on your talk page. In brief: consider combining the two articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and a request at very bottom of my talk page. Thanks, Woodlandpath (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double Redirect - Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia

Hi DGG: You're on the history for this protected double redirect so I'll have to ask you to fix it (if someone else doesn't beat you to it). Currently: Ethnic Macedonians of Greece → Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia → Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia
If you wouldn't mind, could you remove the hyphen "-" from the protected redirect of Ethnic Macedonians of Greece so that it points directly to (un−hyphenated) Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Thx — Who R you? (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

someone else seems to have already done it.

thanks

thanks for the guidance Mlevandowsky (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed Responses

Since I have been away for the last two weeks I'm just dropping you a note to let you know I have now responded to your comment on my talk page - in case you have stopped watching for the reply. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

responded. DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Noformation's talk page.
Message added 00:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

This was a while ago so I wasn't sure if you're still watching my page, anyway, just responded to your message. N^oformation ^Talk 00:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Portland Weird

Hey, I know the article makes it look like this topic is primarily about a marketing organization, but it's really notable as a cultural trend. The org is secondary. I've added new references to the article, so if you could take a look at perhaps reconsider your !vote on the AFD that would be greatly appreciated. Hope you're well, Steven Walling • talk 05:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remain of the same opinion: fails WP:LOCAL and will continue to fail it if no-body outsides the area writes about it. With respect to local events, I've never been an inclusionist. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:LOCAL actually applies in this case? Did that redirect get moved, am I missing something that's there, or is the content not what you remember it being? Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've been here before. Yes, it's about local institutions, not local events, but i think the spirit of WP:RS and WP:LOCAL requires sources from outside the immediate region. I do not trust newspapers in their coverage of local events to be discriminating. People may agree with me or not , but that's the way I interpret it. I'm quite used to people disagreeing with my interpretation of the intent of our rules--I think people will always differ in such interpretations. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DGG, thanks for the reply. Not sure if it matters, but among the sources I added was coverage from Frommer's and a national travel magazine. There was also a U.S. in general travel guide from Frommer's that mentioned it, though I figured adding another was a little redundant. Maybe it's not enough to meet significance for you in the context of WP:LOCAL, but I think it's important to point out there is coverage that isn't just local media. Steven Walling • talk 23:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will look again. it would make a difference. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And so it does. I changed to a keep. Inadequate evaluation of the refs on my part. As always, I appreciate being corrected. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I appreciate you being calm and open minded, as usual. :) Steven Walling • talk 02:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. T. Alley

Closed as a delete? Does that seem fair? To me it looks clearly like a no consensus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the close may not have been correct, but it's a borderline article. Borderline articles do not make strong cases at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

In AFD discussions where one editor might repeatedly WP:BLUDGEON the heck out of anyone else with whom he disagrees, just when does such become actionable under WP:POINT or Wikipedia:Etiquette? Or is it easier to simply ignore such? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I think it best when realizing such behavior is occuring, to recognize it as such and know when to walk away... thus discouraging more such and any of its accompanying drama. New behavioral essay WP:BRICK coming up, as one must be able to recognize a brick wall when one meets it and acknowledge the fruitlessness of trying to speak to it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my guess is that this is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. I agree that further discussion is not really likely to clarify things. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good guess. I suppose a check of my edit history and seeing my involvement in that discussion were clues. I had to leave it, as continuation of reasonable dialogue was becoming impossible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and I was already involved in both of them DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding

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

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

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

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

Capstone Associated

I am rewriting this article and could definitely use some pointers. Once I get it in better shape would you mind taking a look at it? Morning-glory-1170 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my brief review of news sources and the references supplied, this article appears almost certain to be deleted if it makes its way to main space. None of the citations provided appears to be independent of the topic, nor do there appear to be others. ^Bongo_matic 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. I doubt actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This company is already mentioned in Alternative Risk Transfer. In addition to this, this entry Mercer (consulting firm) appears to mostly cite references from that company's site. The references here come from industry sites and publications. What constitutes topic independence in light when you compare these two entries? Just trying to get a feel of what to aim for.

Morning-glory-1170 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, the ART article mentioned a number of companies without Wikipedia pages as examples of leading players--but it does not do so now, for I just removed them, & left a warning against adding any. That;s our usual standard for such content. Articles like this need checking from time to time. When someone compares their small niche company with a very large firm that is a market leader in a broad field, and asks why that has an article & the other doesn't, I take this as pretty much an admission of promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I have to disagree. My reason for the comparison is to try to understand the concept of notability better, and to fathom just how independent of topic sources would be. Capstone is a historically interesting company in an emerging field, and I believe this is notable. My concern was, in looking at Mercer (consulting firm), that the majority of sources cited there aren't independent at all. So I'm confused. Does this criterion not get applied to larger companies? Just trying to understand.

Morning-glory-1170 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary that the majority of sources be independent, but that there be independent sources. The independent sources are needed to show notability--I think they are present in the Mercer article but if you think it needs additional, look for them. The company's own sources are reliable for the routine facts of company history and business lines, but not for notability The only immediately relevant matter that seems not to be documented is whether Mercer should be included in the listing of the major companies in this particular field in the ART article, as their corporate focus is otherwise; I'm thinking of removing that if I can not find a source for it. DGG ( talk ) 14:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: afd closes

Hi DGG. I was wondering how long it would be before someone picked me up on this - the truth is I simply started closing AfDs too high up the list. I'm well aware of the seven day limit and the importance of doing everything by the book and so on. Thanks, however, for picking up on this; at least someone is watching. Ta. — Joseph Fox 22:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sure,it's easy to do by accident. We need a notice like for prods. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be incredibly handy. Something to pester a script maker about! :) — Joseph Fox 23:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're up to it

This is still pending Jarry1250's response to me, but I felt it would be better to inform you about it sooner rather than later. Please see this discussion. I sincerely hope you are up to it, because god knows you are a far better writer than me and i'm not very good at Op-Ed style writing anyways. And I would like this to make as much of an impact as possible. Silverseren^C 09:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jarry responded affirmatively, so I really hope you're up to it. If not, do you know of anyone else who would want to write it? Silverseren^C 10:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I shall do it; see the page linked to. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Equal (photo documentary)

DGG, would you mind userfying this article to the author's userspace? I've been discussing the situation with him in at COIN and think he's willing to work on it to make it acceptable in mainspace. OlYeller^Talktome 20:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else took care of it. Thanks though. OlYeller^Talktome 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne van den Ban

DGG, I replied to your remarks on the discussion page of the article but started to doubt whether that was the appropriate place for it, I'll repost it here but please let me know what is the best place!

DGG, thank you for your constructive remarks! I will try to improve the article in the coming week.

I have a question about using the CV as a source; since all sources should be published, how does this work with the CV? I doubt that it is publicly available. If I understand you correctly, I can still use the Bio from the universities website as a source of information, right? I will have to reword or quote it. Do you have a suggestion for a good article about a professor where I can get some further inspiration? Kind regards, HJPB (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CVs and bios from an official site are usable for the routine uncontroversial facts of a person's career. Especially in the academic world, it is extremely rare to see them not authentic--I can recall only one here is 4+ years, They are in fact much more likely to be accurate than most secondary sources for the material. Lying there is a certain way to get oneself out a a job. The only caution is that sometimes people on the fringes of the academic world will not differentiate between peer-reviewed and other publications. Since the basis of an academic CV is one's publications, that's pretty easy. (I verify a publication record as a matter of course if anything looks at all dubious, and I normally simply remove minor publications) Be aware its the custom on formal CVs to list absolutely everything--they're used as evaluation for promotion, and If other things are challenged, which usually occurs here for academics only when they are working in fields involving public controversy, what can be checked should be checked--but in my experience here, most such challenges are not in good faith, but an attempt to remove as many bios of people opposed to one's POV. (Sometimes the opposite occurs, an attempt to add bios on semi-notable people with things in their career that would negatively affect their credibility, by people opposed to their POV, almost always in equally bad faith.) DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Africa World Airlines

Thank you for your commentary on my talk page regarding your decision to speedy delete the article for Africa World Airlines. You have cited the reason that "it amounted to an advertisement for a company not yet active". This is not accurate. Africa World Airlines is a licensed airline holding Air Carrier License #222 issued by Ghana Civil Aviation Authority. Furthermore, the same criterion could be applied to three other Ghanaian airlines viz. Starbow Airlines, Johnsons Air and Aerogem Aviation, none of which are presently actually operating flight services. Indeed, the article for Starbow (specifically the section about branding) reads far more like an advertisement than anything on the Africa World Airlines page did. Africa World Airlines, and indeed the page created about it, meets all the requisite criteria regarding neutrality, notability and verifiability. Finally, while I admit I have no specific evidence about this, I find it highly suspicious that an anonymous user makes their first and only contributions on a brand new Wikipedia page that went live barely 24 hours ago. This does not seem consistent with an assumption of good faith. I would therefore request that you kindly review your deletion of the page and reinstate if possible. Thank you. SM105 (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, please see comments by the anonymous user at User_talk:41.210.6.240 as possible evidence of malafide intent and bad faith. Thanks. SM105 (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replied further on your talk p. "Active" means actual flights, just as we don't write on a new member of a national sports team until they actually take the field in a regular season game. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Folkdirect.com

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folkdirect.com&action=edit&redlink=1

I was directed here by the notes for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folkdirect.com - this website has significant links on the internet and a full deletion is inappropriate. Can you please reinstate the page and the relevant new article links will be added. Encoderops (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see another admin restored it; indeed, since it was last deleted via Prod, you had the right to get it restored. But I see that every reference you have is just a mention, not significant coverage. If you cannot improve it within a few days, it will be surely nominated for deletion, and probably deleted. The same goes for the article on Fondomat, with only one source for notability, and that one of dubious independence. I would be glad to be proved wrong, but the only thing that will do it is reliable references. For there to be a Wikipedia article, it has to be more than a good idea, it has to be a good idea the world has noticed. Until that happens, it's promotionalism. My advice is that if you can not source it to our standard now, that you withdraw it until you can; it will be easier to reintroduce the article when it eventually becomes notable , than if it were deleted again. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a world of glamour

DGG, I am unfit to edit "Indrani (photographer)"; I'm insufficiently beautiful. Can you think of any suitably "chiseled", coiffed, manicured, and perfumed editor? I notice that much of this flatus is sourced to the "reliable" "popphoto", a glance at which was enough to remind me why I'm mentally and sartorially inadequate to popphoto and instead must limit myself to un-pop photos. -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC) PS this page, improbably listed as an external link, tells me what I need to know. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link, please, for that comment--I can not find it. . Perhaps I'm naïve, but I rather thought Popular Photography/pophoto, while not the most technical or highbrow of photo magazines, a reasonably good source for what it covers. And it seems a not unperceptive story The LA Times is often rather on the nasty side. Together they do give a good view on the subject, and in a sense, confirm each other. As usual, I think it wise to Just include all the references, if they're better than blog posts. Both of these are. Somewhat. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I don't mean that anybody else told me that I was unsuited. I just know that I am unsuited. (My idea of clothing: Choose whatever's closest to hand and doesn't need washing. My idea of hairstyling: Let it go wherever it seems to want to go; if it's long enough to need contrary persuasion, go to the barber and when he asks "Same as usual" answer "Yup".) -- Hoary (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesterman

Did you look at the actual article? [15] Overly polemic citation from a critic prominently displayed. I have no idea what the mainstream scholarly view is on the legality of NATO bombings of Yugoslavia, but I do feel his bio is being COATRACKed. The entire section was added by La Goute. And if you feel like helping with another mess see Eugenics in Singapore. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nothing justifies such a comment. Subjects editing their articles with COI, can be reverted and if necessary even blocked, but they cannot be insulted. There have been indeed many problems with the bio--you are certainly right about that) I've mentioned on this at the ongoing RfC, at [16]; as you apparently disagree, you may want to say so there. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen your RfC statement now. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Chesterman is a prof. in Singapore. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, explains the involvement. Thanks, I had missed it. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by "Did you look at the actual article?" what I meant was that her talk page comment was not the end of her involvement there. She heavily edited the article supposedly to "punish COI", which entailed adding some polemic quotes from the guys critics, which are more prominent than his own positions, which appear poorly presented. If were to ABF a lot, I would say: classic propaganda technique--never let your enemies speak for themselves. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss all these concerns on the talk page, you know. I'll be glad to address all your concerns, if you bring them up in the open rather than WP:CANVASSING allies in the dark. I merely searched for what other contemporaries said about Chesterman; a key part of the scientific process is peer review. This is a core tenet. Please note: Chesterman cited primary sources from his own work -- that is, using non-neutral self-published sources. I added mainly secondary sources from peer-reviewed journals; Chesterman appeared to delight in self-citation of books that did not even have a pre-publication peer review process. If you want, you can add secondary sources of your own when you have the time. Chesterman is clearly out to promote himself or boost his PageRank, furthermore, he arrogantly inserted himself into tons of other articles, and included himself in the List of Rhode Scholars. My edits were but mild compensation to his self-aggrandising edits.

Note my only interest in this is that it's WP:COI. I only came across this because he did have a tangential issue with Singaporean politics. As it is said in WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, people who create articles about themselves should not be surprised if they are dismayed by the final result. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course an article on a writer should have quotations from the writers work: they are the best sources for the views he expresses in them, it's an appropriate use of first-party sources, and whether the subject added them is irrelevant, if they were added fairly and not excessively (And of course it's because such additions are often excessive is why we have and ought to have rules about discouraging COI--if you look at my contributions this week you should see what I've been doing with some of the more outrageous COI articles--it can get a lot worse than this article ever was. What his works are not a source for is the importance of his views, and any use that way is improper COI editing. My current view might even be that people with COI should be encouraged to start an article--and then leave it alone--what we need is a mechanism not to let them pass unrevised, & I think we do a lot better here than we did a few years ago. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the original revision, the books merely cited his importance and basically did field-dropping. I did not in fact know what his views were until I looked them up. Then I looked at what other people said about his views. Citing only his importance and not his views puzzles me -- because if he's an academic I'm not sure why he has to behave like he's running some sort of citation mill. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for most articles about people we are dependent on someone with COI, and who also does not understand Wikipedia, That's why we need to catch articles and fix them. Too many people act as if there is only a choice between deleting and keeping as it stands.

There's by now a chance we may have drifted from the original issue, so I have re-analyzed the version you sent for AfD on april 11 [17]], in terms of what I do when I rewrite academic bios, and I've rewritten many hundred. I see nothing radically wrong on the face of it, except for it not matching our style. (There's the often seen peculiarity of not stating the basic facts of his background--some people do that, while others tend to over-expand on them). References to his works are entirely proper, since his notability is derived from them. It is not usual to list them as references, but to list them in a separate "publications " section. He listed them on the publisher's sites, instead of linking to WorldCat or the equivalent. I consider this not good practice, and I generally change it in order to give standardized reliable information. What is very odd is that he does not list all his published books. As for excess articles on them, I see a link to only one of then, and going by the present consensus of the AfD on it, it will be kept. He cites a few of his other publications; this is justified also .

It's not inappropriate to list editorships--I prefer that we don't list editorial board memberships but many articles have them. Again he does them as references, not as a list; its a reasonable alternative here. I think a list is more readable; some people think a list is too CV-like, and a text is more encyclopedic. His discussions of the book summarize briefly what they are about. This can be done in several ways: quoting from the books is one, quoting from the reviews is another. Quoting praise from the reviews is appropriate, though the quotes he gave should have been shorter; I normally reduce them to a short sentence giving the gist of it; some people put them in the footnotes. He omitted negative criticism. This must of course go in for a controversial author, but only the most sophisticated and self-assured add it themselves, and people who like an author without having direct COI normally omit it also. In this case, the article gives no indication that what he says might be controversial, by not mentioning his most controversial work, which does show a degree of bias and a desire to have a favorable article--and that is the main problem; you are completely correct about that. It is a problem that needed to be fixed by someone who realized it, and you were very right to do so. But I continue to regard nothing he did in the article as spamming. It is very difficult to trace what links to himself there may have earlier been in other articles, but the few there at present are all reasonable. Since Google does not follow our links for their pagerank algorithm, it does not increase his prominence there. The Wikipedia article on someone will almost always be one of the top hits in google--that's a deliberate choice of their's, to adjust the algorithm so it emphasises the importance and reach of our web site.

I then re-read the comment I mentioned at the RfC. I consider it justified. First, he is not a spammer. Second, if what he did had been scamming, it is possible to refer to it as strongly as necessary while still wording it impersonally. I don't want to break the continuity of the rfc, but otherwise, I would ask for someone else to do rev del.--I don't think its sufficient for oversight. I think that when this is settled, you might want to do that yourself; you might say now, that you intend to do so.

However, I think your your asking for an rfc yourself to pre-empt a more hostile one, and get it out of the battleground that is ANI, was good judgment. I think going to arb com to deal with the other people involved may possibly be a good idea, but I agree with the majority of arbs commenting so far that its premature. Elen drew a parallel to Scientology, but this is not a pervasive. Your accepting recall was also a very good way of defusing the situation. I might have modified my remark at the RfC had I realized this at the time, and I shall say so. I do not want to quarrel with you. We have different approaches on several general issues, but I have worked together successfully with people whose approaches differ from mine much more strongly. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics in Singapore

In the other article, I'm concerned that Casliber approved this for the main page. The lead presents Singapore as a perennial eugenics society. A quick search found that the most incriminated program was highly unpopular and lasted only a year (and its main proponent only about as long in office). [18]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

WP:AUTHOR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Loves Libraries

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

Blocked ip

I noticed you were working with this user and might want to weigh in on the block... Dreadstar ☥ 22:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked, & I hope the results will justify it. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Karenina (2012 film)

Looks like Wifione (talk · contribs) beat you to closing this one by 3 minutes, and you ended up creating a nested closure, so to speak. I would have undone your edit but I wasn't sure what you wanted done with the closure comment you left. I leave it up to your discretion. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I removed my duplicate close; we said essentially the same thing. DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hentai

Responding to RFCs

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

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear example of needless counter-productive provocation. I commented accordingly DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Alan Liefting

Please help me, this user is at it again trying to delete several pages. Geek2003 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you can, expect this to continuer even though most of the previous vbatch of nominations for deletion did not succeed. (not even no-consensus or merge, they were mostly just kept by consensus). You can expect every such article to be nominated. Unfortuantely, it is even possible that the ones which do not get deleted the first timeto be renominated until, by chance or exhaustion, they all are--though I hope the ed.will not be doing that. When someone, acting in good faith as this editor is doing, is truly convinced that certain material does not belong, they sometimes do get their way. The most important thing you can do is to add good references to these and all the similar articles. Articles with really good references are almost always kept without much trouble--articles with borderline non-3rd party references are a problem, as well they ought to be. Good referencingis important, and if the eds. work can get you or others to add references, it will have been a good thing for the encyclopedia. Don;t get angry at it, just do the necessary work, and probably he will realize. (You do not have to notify me; I try to look at all afds on topics where i have something to say) DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am under the influence of a rather good Rosé wine vintered by Selaks so what I am about to say will have to be reviewed once I have less alcohol coursing through my circulatory system. DGG, thank you for your assumption that I am editing in good faith. You also give a good appraisal of the situation that we are dealing with. Geek2003, good move on your part to request the assistance from an inclusionist WP editor!! But I think there are rules about soliciting help for AfDs. ~~It my be illegal.~~ As for the inclisionist/deletionist continuum I make no secret of the fact (well I haven't now!!) that I am a deletionist when it comes to articles on products and commercial organisations. Editors need to be vigilant to prevent any insidious SPAM articles being created that do not fit in with the WP "landscape". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see my attitude towards promotionalism, look at my deletion log: about half my 12,000 deletionsare speedy G11s. As we both know, I totally disagree with you about the way to handle this material: product information is not spam; product advertising is. There will be some inherent promotional effect from our writing objectively about anything notable for being good or useful, but that's an inevitable byproduct.

I understand your concern about canvassing; it has arisen here before a number of times. My view is that people can see from my talk p & its archives that it does not particular good to canvass me if what you want is support, for I comment as I think fit in the particular circumstance, which is not always what is hoped for. Like AN/I, it can boomerang. I always give the best advice I can about how to meet the consensus whether or not I agree with it: surely you agree with me agree that what articles like these need most to be kept is unimpeachable third party substantial sources, something which is usually not as good as it ought to be. Anyway, as I said, I pay attention to all articles of this type to the extent I am able. And it is not canvassing to ask someone previously involved in an issue to return to it. And considering the >500 people who watch this page (Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched users), presumably including most editors who strongly disagree with me on anything major, informing me here will inform them also. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about citations for notable alumni

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comment

May I make a Request for Comment (RfC) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art). Marshallsumter (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to give it a full discussion and made a suggest for how to proceed. Basically, you need to publish your analysis in some RS first, not use Wikipedia or Wikiversity as quasi-publication. In all sincerity, I hope you'll be able to establish it in the customary academic way. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Close Of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of power metal bands And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of speed metal bands

I am asking you to at the very least to wait out the full 7 days of the discussion of these discussions.

I feel that with the claim that a number of references do exist purportedly claiming the entrants as playing these genres may not be true as sources have not been produced to substantiate this claim.Curb Chain (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closes were totally obvious on the material presented. Myself, I can not tell the difference between these genres, and iI've almost never even heard of the bands. So its entirely an abstract argument to me; I would not have closed in this manner something about I had an opinion. I do know that the articles on the bands assign assign them to genres., normally on the basis of references. Since they do, the references are present. Collecting those with a specific genre into a list is then an obvious thing to do, as obvious as making a category. Everyone who commented on any of these article agreed. Iconsiderthat a valid snow closure. You yopurself came there asking only for better referencing,According to WP:BEFORE, that;s a justification for deletion only if you tried to find such, and failed. Again, I cannot see that you could have failed, since the genre references are in the articles in the bands. Now, opinion varies over whether these references need to be copied over. I think that in list articles they generally do not, some think they do; you're apparently among the, . So the solution is to copy them over from the articles if you want them explicitly referenced. Not only can it be done, but you can do it. You seem to have brought these AfDs to force other people to do that, and that's an illegitimate use of AfD. Since youe entire objection can be met by fixing the articles, and you I presume care enough about the subject to work on it, go and fix them. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think it was appropriate to snow close those discussions. You bring valid points, but I should not be excepted to find references if I chose not too. One way of looking at it is that I may have inappropriately nominated the articles for deletion, but snow closing such nominations were inappropriate as well.Curb Chain (talk)

I never insist on things like this. If your really want me to reopen I will, but what is it likely to accomplish? (Nobody forces you to find references, or even to move them, but if you choose not to fix, that's not a reason to delete, since any one of thousands of others can fix. ) DGG ( talk ) 13:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German collective guilt

I have done some work on this and so would like to look at the previous version. Please could you userfy it per your comment in the discussion. Warden (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, note that placing it back into the edit history of the current version has allowed another editor to revert to that deleted version, contrary to the consensus of the previous AFD. Please delete all those versions again and the edits which are now based on them. Warden (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

page deletion or not

I am trying to get National Republican Guard (Portugal) deleted so that another page (on the same subject) can eventually be moved to it. (There are currently no objections to the move [19], for the time being at least!)

Since I have apparently have chosen the wrong way to get it deleted, please advise me on the right way.

Thankyou! Mesoso2 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

after the 7 days provided for discussion, I shall make the move for you if I see no objections. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Ware Article

Thanks for the input on the draft User:Cmagha/John A. Ware; three of us are following up on some sourcing leads from a professor. We'll also give it a good going over for promo language. Your insights were very helpful.IndtAithir (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Regarding your comment on my talk page regarding the unblocking of the IP, that is fine. The only thing is I don't think he understood why the bot was reverting his edits, from recollection I did try to explain that Twitter links and social networking sites etc generally aren't acceptable, my understanding is because anyone can create a Twitter and social networking account but they didn't seem to understand that, I refused his unblock because of that reason as well but when he asked to be unblocked a second time I thought I'd better leave it then and let an independent admin review the case. I had hoped to log in this week in case there was anything needing doing but unfortunately I've just been so snowed under at work, working 11 hour shifts some days I've just not had the time or energy to do that. Thanks for your help and the advice though :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect ordinals

Hello. I would like to ask why you have deleted 33th Yukon general election? User:Robertgreer has recently searched for incorrect ordinals, and saw no need to delete such innocent spelling errors. Could you please undelete the page? And it could be categorized correctly. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help

... With the Wendy Holden page, I appreciate it and thank you for your time taken to fix the page LiteratureWorm (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my view on the notability of murders and murderers

Would you consider being my mentor?

Another expert who finds us unwelcoming

Your question about Genetic Alliance

Provident Personal Credit redirect

Request to mentor a small group of students

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

What journal articles should NOT contain?

I'd like you to look something over...

Edwin Howard Armstrong award

Theodore N. Kaufman

Recrudescence from a speedy you declined back in 2009

Glasgow University Conservative Association

Rosario Parrino, Peter Gruenwald

Is Kirk Kirkpatrick still a good article??

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

A cupcake for you!

Sandusky (automobile company)

GLAMcamp

A notable book?

A quick note

List of most popular missing articles

Discussion at CFD:Science writing

Category:American novels by century

Well Written

An apple pie for you!

Books books books

RE: Natami

talkback

books

email

Dazzpedian

You get a lot of messages!

Reply requested

Please comment on Talk:Martin Ruzicka

currency qy

Further reading

Actors

My CSD history

Talkback

Rescuing Samir Joubran

A barnstar for you!

7X24

Thai Life

recent RFC

Thank you kindly

CSD

Ambassador Program: assessment drive

Talkback

Please comment on Talk:Yeshu

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

Question about deletions (another admin)

Belatedly contested PROD

your thoughts please :-)

Lalla Latifa Hammou AFD

Cara Hartmann

EU projects

Your librarian expertise is requested

Yak Formation Team

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

International Student Senate

Talkback

DRV comment formatting

Again

International Student Senate bis

Girlsounds

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knight's Bridge

A question about a question I can't answer

Please comment on Talk:Ernest Shackleton

May I have your input, please?

Domain Registry of America

Kleinplatz

About the Koljo Karagiosov AfD

Avaya AFD

Battle of Bitlis

Please comment on Talk:Spider Ledesma

hello

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

Human Services – Board Certified Practitioner

Speedies