User talk:DGG

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

Has this account been compromised?

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

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

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

WP:AN post about you

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

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

Ha

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

See [2]. And once or twice before. Makes my day each time, as the saying goes. DGG (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Well said

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

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

User:DGG/LG

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

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

magazines...and speedy

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

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

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

Noticeboards, noticeboards, noticeboards!

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

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

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

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

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

Namecheck

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

Wikipedia:Deletion reform study group

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

You are famous

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

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

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

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

Congratulations

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

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

Fame

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

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

Re: User:Jbmurray/Madness

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

A3 to Prod ?

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

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

Communist Propaganda AfD

I do think you have missed the point a bit on this one. Did you read my entire !vote? "not a notable scholarly subject, because nothing (or vanishingly little) has been written about what is common to propaganda from various communist countries, parties and communist organisations." I happen to be fairly certain that such sources do not exist - except, maybe, in long-discredited John Birch Society pamphlets. More to the point, none have been produced.

As I said, "Propaganda in the Soviet Union"/"by the Soviet Union" are perfectly acceptable articles, and not under discussion. Please note that the Western propaganda redirect sends us to the Chomsky theory of propaganda in advanced capitalist societies, which makes precisely the above sort of argument - that there is a common thread to the propaganda output in these societies. Note also that it is presented there as a theory, as well. Were any similar theories to be found in reliable sources about propaganda from societies and parties as diverse as Cuba, the Soviet Union, North Korea, the Communist Party of South Africa, the Shining Path, and the Socialist Unity Centre of India, or even any sources that claimed to make that connection, as the Chomsky theory does for other equally diverse societies and organisations, the situation would be different. Otherwise we are left with people using "communist propaganda" as shorthand for particular, different, communist parties. Jumbling them together would be unacceptable synthesis, and get anyone who did so a failing grade in most undergraduate courses.

I was particularly disappointed and dismayed. because if one of our most experienced commenters on deletion debates does not see the danger of "articles titled with weakly-defined referents, which are then used as soapboxes for whatever form of original research people with a bunch of different POVs turn up with a single Google search on the title phrase", then we are indeed in trouble, and it explains the losing battle some of us are fighting trying to keep advocacy swill of various flavours out of the mainspace.

Could you perhaps revisit your vote? --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

replied on the AfD page: the subjects overlap.

I'm now going to be heretical--I think the best way to deal with some issues is a policy change to permit ideological forking in articles. I think we do it implicitly in some cases already, and that we might as well do it explicitly. Otherwise we end up with uncomfortable attempts at synthesis which if they ever reach a compromise, do it by reducing an article to meaninglessness. Instead of subheadings "criticism" we should have "X views on" and "Y views on." But I'm certainly not arguing the afd on that basis, for such is not the current policy. DGG (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As I spelled out there, I still think you're wrong :)

Anyway, I'm actually thinking very hard about what you just threw out up there. If we can't keep our mainspace free, perhaps we can keep certain articles free. Hmmm. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been invoked

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

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

"Webisodes" and the like

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

Challenge Award - fame at last?

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

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

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

Re: question

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

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

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

(this refers to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CDS Global page update, 27 May 2008

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

Herndon article

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

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

J.M. Hayes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superiority Complex?

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

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

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

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

Wikigender

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Flagged articles

Hello again ...

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

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

Category:Flagged editors

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

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

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

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

)

Current project

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

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

)

WP:Lectures

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

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

H.O.P.E. speech

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

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

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

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

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

Fringe

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

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

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

AfD essay

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

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

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

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

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

NLP

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

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

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

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

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

Consistency

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

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

Stress

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

CSD vs. AfD

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

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

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

If an article is wrong, fix it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Birawer

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

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

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

Ecclesiastes 12:12

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

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

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

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

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

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

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

Matthias Kuhle

Please point me to the bit in the above article that indicates importance/significance. It looks like a massive COI attempt at somesort of self-promotion to me and all I see is resume/C.V. stuff with some books he may have supposedly written. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

saying one is has a position such a significant executive in a major orqanization or professor at a major university or anything of the sort is an assertion or indication of notability enough to pass speedy. Almost any good faith assertion will do--read WP:CSD and the discussions on its talk page. The bar is much lower than WP:N. Given his publications, it's probably going to pass afd,though I have not checked how widely he's cited, which will be the determining factor. You can verify the books at WorldCat. You can do at least a preliminary check at Google scholar--and see the comment I left at the author's talk page. We do not delete for COI!! DGG (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay let me make sure I understand the above. Saying you are the CEO/Chairman of the Board/etc counts as an assertion of notability? Just that? Saying you are a professor at "a major university" automatically counts as an assertion of notability? Forgive me if that makes no sense to me. After looking more deeply into things (including the idential article that existed with a misspelled first name) I did find some stuff that mentioned the name (but, couldn't read any of it). I've got no plans to take to AfD. I'm just trying to find somesort of consistency from the admins on these things. Is it oaky to ask you (and the other admins) to be like really really specific in edit summaries and such on stuff like this? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

two levels: example 1/ Saying someone is president or chairman of the board at a notable company if it can be shown from the company web site is actual notability,and even if it has not yet been shown, that's only reason to find the reference, not delete the article via speedy or any other process. Most people , not quite all, agree on this, but most such articles are kept at AfD. Further, saying one is chairman of the board at any company that anyone might possibly think notable is an assertion of notability. Saying one is a corporate officer in a lesser position or a lesser company is usually not enough for actual notability except for major officers of really major companies {e.g. CTO of Apple is notable) but that too whether or not actually notable is an assertion of notability enough to defeat a speedy, and almost all admin agree. example 2/ saying someone is a full professor at a major research university is almost always enough for actual notability, and is trivial to verify, althugh not the literal standard of WP::PROF, because almost always enough recgnition of importance in the field can be found, and has been confirmed for almost all cases brought to AfD in the absence of special circumstances; saying someone is professor at any university or college is an assertion of notability--it may or may not be enough to pass AfD, even when verified--it depends on rank, nature of the school, and accomplishments nut it passes speedy. I point out that whether someone has written books is trivial to verify.

The principle is that speedy is only for articles that beyond any reasonable question are not notable. Anything that might, if true, give rise to a good faith debate, is not a speedy--whether about notability or anything else. Even copyvio-- Unquestionable copyvio is a speedy -- probable copyvio is a suspected copyright violation, not a speedy, and can be blanked, but not deleted. Purely promotional articles which cannot reasonable be rewritten are speedy; if it might be possible to rewrite them, they are not, and require afd. "No context" unclear enough enough to literally make it impossible to figure out what the article is about is a speedy, dubious context is an afd. And so forth for all the criteria.

This is not an extreme position. Many, probably about half, of admins say that speedy is not for any article for which there is any good faith doubt at all, even if it is not reasonable in terms of WP standards. I have proposed limiting it to those with a reasonable doubt, and this did not obtain consensus. As it stands, the wording of CSD holds: unquestionable, not even reasonable question.

True, some admins are ignoring the plain language of WP:CSD, and speedy deleting articles that assert but don't support notability, or that they think will not likely pass AfD. Unfortunately, at present if carried to deletion review, the current attitude is that such deletions are sometimes supported if it appears really unlikely. This is an artifact of the limited number of people who bother to show up at deletion review. When 1000 active admins, and no policy on precedent, many decisions will inevitably be wrong. Just find me any group of a selected 1000 people who agree on anything! Humans don't work that way. Admins as a body are not totally consistent, and though we should work towards getting them more consistent, experience shows we won't get all that far. Only a project directed from above with the equivalent of a supreme court can be consistent. If you want consistency, you need a dictator. There are such projects, such as Conservapedia.

The reason behind the principle, is that no one person, admin or otherwise, is qualified to decide on notability if the matter can be disputed, only the community. Similarly , no one admin is qualified to decide on blocking if it is disputable--any other admin can reverse it, and force a discussion at AN/I to see what the community thinks--not just the community of admins, but the entire community, for anyone can give an opinion there. analogously, bureaucrat is a position of very high trust, but no bureaucrat can individually promote a person to admin--it take a community decision at RfAdmin. Arbitrator is a position of the greatest trust we can give, but they too decide as a committee. DGG (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

archiving

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

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

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

Fictional (?) book

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

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

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

User:TTN

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

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

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

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

Speedy Deletion

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

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

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

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

Your Comments on my Talk Page

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

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

prod

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

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

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

Great Work

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		DGG you are one the best Wikipedians .I have came across despite differences in standards and even opinion you have been a true gentleman,helpful,kind and very good human being. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Refining AfD outcomes

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

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

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

User:TTN

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

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

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

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

An offer of help, other inclusionists, and suggestions

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

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

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

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

Corps

To quote your own line above, things should be sourced!! Small stubs that are not sourced merely make WP look bad and should be either fixed or deleted. (User Buckshot06)

Is this apropos of something in particular? Things should be sourced. Until they are, the stubs should be kept so someone can fix them. Small stubs have multiple purposes: they provide at least a minimal amount of information, they indicate the structure of the articles on the subject, they provide a place for newcomers to work. The great virtue of Wikipedia is that is covers a very great range of things, even though it does not cover most of them very well. Only a top-down edited or directed work can have uniformly good coverage. At least here, if stubs bother you, you can fix it yourself by expanding the article. Don't complain that other's haven't done so--they could equally complain that you haven't. DGG (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep

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

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

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

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

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

Appreciation

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

A true CSD survey

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

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

deletion process of an article

What is the proper procedure for having an article removed from Wikipedia by the originating authors. We realize our article does not meet the Wikipedia standards and we agree with the editors that it should be speedily deleted. Stretch call (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To see the surveys, go to this page. I'm hoping to get a good mix of people to participate in the surveys---people who agree with my interpretation of CSD and people who have different views. I'll post the results in a couple of weeks after getting a decent return.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

you forgot to say where. DGG (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, looks like I forgot to include the link, I've added it now in case somebody sees if from here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your my hero

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

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig Carl Christian Koch

You might want to take another look at the afd, and redo your WorldCat search. Don't count on full names being used there. DGG (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, and also checked other sources. As you probably noticed, I changed my vote to a keep. Thanks.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Yurken (talk • contribs)

Egyptian Yoga

If you know someone who might be familiar with this subject or wouldn't mind having a look I would appreciate it. I nominated the article for deletion, but the creator has been working hard on improving it. I'm still concerned the sources seem to be what's being promoted and the notability of the subject itself hasn't been established with good sources. It almost seems more like an article about the author of the sources than Egyptian Yoga. I'd be happy to have a neutral perspective. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

when I have so little interest I cannot force myself to actually read the article, I think it wiser not to comment. DGG (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DGG was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

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

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

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

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

Alexander Dictionary of English Idioms

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

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

Christian Forums

First, thanks for sticking up for the CF page back on the deletion review. It doesn't look like it's going to survive this round, BUT I think we can make it work if some reliable, third-party sources are found. I've put together a template of potential sources for this on my user page, if you're interested. What I need are some candidates, and then the article should be a go for re-launch. toll_booth (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not have the opportunity to work on this, but when you think you have enough sources, rewrite the article on a subpage and I will have a look at it. DGG (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Classical guitar pedagogy

When you deleted Classical guitar pedagogy, you missed deleting Talk:Classical guitar pedagogy. I'm also not convinced it fits the criteria for a speedy G7 delete, since while TheRationalGuitarist has been the principal editor for the past year, the article did exist prior to that and had edits from others, as I recall. As I mention on the talk page, I didn't touch the prodding of the article when I restored the content from TheRationalGuitarist's replacing it with a link to his blog since I didn't have an opinion on deleting the article as such, I just didn't feel it was appropriate for an editor to essentially blank an article because he wanted to take back his words. - Fordan (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I apparently missed the early history of the article and I have restored the whole. I'm removing the prod; it seems there is a decent version to revert to, and I will revert to it. Some of the later material may be usable, and I leave that to the editors interested. But my leaving the talk page was deliberate--i often do leave it for a while to serve as an explanation. I will explain there what I'm doing. DGG (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what you think of this idea

At your convenience, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees#Content authority: a different approach. It may address some of the objections you voiced earlier on that page. -- Noroton (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed extremists are the problem

Per mailing list...

I think you are right the 1% loud mouthed people are disrupting the system so much, it prevents us as a community to reach in any sort of agreement. Such an agreement would significantly hamper the activity of the 1%.

To address this I think a few things need to be done. This is more of a chain reaction.

• I demand to see proof of consensus behind the mass removals. The community should also demand to see the evidence of such a consensus. I am wary of polls and votes on this issue as in the past the 1% has "outvoted" the community as no one is interested in the drama over unimportant articles. People reserve their "drama credits" over possible future disputes they care about.
• After the above step community would need to ban or restrict people who do not act responsively and disrupt the site with their "bold" mass actions. Mass reverts, mass deletions, mass nominations and mass actions of any sort are problematic unless there is consensus behind it.
• After the two steps above, the general issue should be addressed and community should decide how to handle unimportant articles such as the ones on TV episodes, character and video games.
• Lastly the consensus by the community would need to be enforced.

However to achieve all that we need to prod the community to act on the first item somehow. I doubt arbcom will be useful at all so this should either be a community prod or a Jimbo prod. Jimbo himself told me that he wasn't too happy with whats happening but he explicitly tried to avoid saying anything definitive. I guess maybe a community request for a Jimbo prod may start the actual discussion.

For example Jimbo could "demand to see" a consensus to mass remove articles (like how TTN and others are doing) and that would start the chain reaction. After all if they indeed have consensus behind their actions it shouldn't be too hard to prove it. If enough people ask Jimbo, I am sure he would be more compelled to prod the community.

-- Cat ^chi? 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Something else to consider

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

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

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

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

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

A quick question

If an AfD closes as redirect, does the article get deleted and then redirected or is it just redirected with the history inact? Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

the article is redirected, in most cases. There are times when the previous history of the article is such that we delete and make a new redirect, and that should when needed be specified in the closing. . Note that if the article is merged, then the GFDL requires that the history not be deleted, and after whatever content needs to be merged is merged, then the remainder is edited to be a redirect, but cannot be deleted. At least thats how I interpret the procedure. DGG (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my jumping in here. DGG's interpretation matches what I've found in documentation. Per WP:Guide to deletion#Shorthands (scroll down to Redirect), history deletion must be explicitly recommended, such as in cases of copyvio or BLP. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

request for input

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

verifiability and context

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

Re:Bielski

Forgive me, I lost track of how you got involved in this issue. Do you mean Aron Bielski? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

of course I do. I saw the AfD. And long ago, it was you yourself who invited me to the discussion of Polish related topics here. But why on earth should you have even asked "how I got involved"? I consider that a highly improper question, though I answer it anyway. DGG (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

useful general remark

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

"Possibly distinguished in its field"

Re: this prod removal. "Possibly distinguished in its field" could be said of any random academic. Demanding that we "First look for references & wht he may have published" for each of the thousands of unsourced vestigial stubs on wikipedia before deletion, is (i) against WP:BURDEN & (ii) creates an enormous and unreasonable assymetry between the time needed to add a barren (i.e. unsourced and uninformative) stub and the time taken to delete the same -- leading to their continued proliferation to the detriment of wikipedia. I'm AfDing it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you about the way to do deletion, about the burden & the asymmetry. I think nominating for deletion without checking for sources oneself is reckless and unhelpful, and against the intent of basic WP deletion policy, that deletion is the last resort. It ought to be made impossible when the question is notability. I further think the asymmetry is the opposite direction, between the extreme ease of nominating for deletion and the much more difficult one of creating or saving. Therefore a concern for symmetry requires one to be exceptionally careful in deleting to correct for this. I also think you misinterpret WP:Burden. The burden is to prove an article should be deleted. The policy you refer to deals with V, with providing sources for a challenged statement, where indeed the burden is on the one who asserts the statement. Not here. Yes, certainly, the demonstration of notability it ought to be done properly by the person who wrote the article, but if not , then it is the responsibility of all editors to try to improve it. If it appears impossible, or if one fails in a reasonable effort, then one nominates for deletion. Whether he will prove notable or not, the afd will decide. I agree with you to the extent that he possibly may not be distinguished in his field. What we need is some evidence. DGG (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

turns out he is distinguished: a very major book by Cambridge Univ Press, among other things. I admit to being a little surprised how easy it was to show this. I too failed my own expections a little, for I should have done this when removing the prod & added it then. DGG (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonable to expect those proposing/nominating deletion to investigate articulations of notability contained in the article. It is not reasonable to expect an open-ended search for anything that might bring notability. In cases such as this, nothing of any substance has been 'created', so it is not a matter of "saving" so much as re-creation from scratch, whether the article is deleted first or not. WP:BURDEN goes on to state "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Taking that in conjunction with the first sentence in that section, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the burden for finding "reliable, third-party sources" to prevent deletion "lies with the editor who adds" an article. Certainly the burden lies with them to give some articulation of why the topic is worthy of further investigation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase is "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found" , not" If the author finds no.. " I agree that the burden is primarily on the author. I think further,that any who thinks it unnotable because there are no sources should confirm whether there are no sources to give. I shall continue to gather consensus to make that an actual formal requirement, both to help articles and to avoid wasting the time of the community at AfD. DGG (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to "confirm whether there are no sources to give", as one can never prove that there isn't, in some obscure bookcase, in some obscure library, a book containing material on a topic. This is why the only efficient policy is to have the burden of proof on those creating an article to demonstrate an article's notability. They are the ones who are supposed to know (i) what an article is about, (ii) why it is supposed to be notable & (iii) where the sources are. Expecting this from editors who simply come across a badly underformed article is unreasonable, and will lead to a plague of these articles -- as they are far easier to create than to delete (the article that started this argument would have taken at most 5 minutes to write). If you want "to avoid wasting the time of the community at AfD" then don't un-prod articles with only trivial content. Such trivial content is inconsequential to the task of creating any sort of useful encyclopaedic content on the topic, so deleting it doesn't harm any legitimate purpose. I will close by noting that, in spite of all the huffing and puffing of 'keep'ers on the AfD, Harold Hoehner‎ is still simply an unencyclopaedic resume+bibliography, lacking any third-party sources, that in a more rational system should have difficulty passing a prod. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

we seem to have some disagreements. I hope we will have several tens of thousands of more articles on academic people of similar and greater distinction, and I expect that the consensus will agree with me. Actually, this is what I came here to do originally, after seeing articles for members of the NAS actually put up for speedy without anyone checking the person's cv to see whether someone in a distinguished position might be a member. You are welcome to argue that people who publish multiple major professional academic books that are found in hundreds of libraries are not notable. As all of the ones from major publishers get reviewed, there will be sources, so I doubt you will get much agreement. I certainly do not defend all academics --I have probably voted to delete more of the nonnotable academics than most people: I was in the middle of nominating one for prod when I saw your message.

I routinely unprod every article in any subject I understand that I think might be fixable or where the deletion might be controversial--my experience is that's only about small percent of the ones I look at, so I don't expect a flood of Afds. I agree that there are too many afds, and the answer is that many of the current unchallenged afds might have better been prods--I too try to use it when possible. As for the article, you are right the article needs some additional sources, such as reviews of his many books.

I expect to disagree with other people sometimes, and I encourage them to ask my reasons, but I am surprised to get such intense challenges as this, because usually people just argue against me at the AfD or whatever. Perhaps you recognize you fell into the same trap I almost did, of assuming that someone with his background

My goal in this--which is a goal much too large to succeed unless others help me-- is to see improved every new article that's fixable, and delete the hopeless (which is about half the total submissions). Probably at the moment we make a considerable percent error in both directions. I think your goal is to keep every new article that is already good enough, and delete all the others. That approach will lose about 25% of the potential articles, and about 25% of the potential new good contributors. Our ultimate goal is the same--to keep out the spam and the nonsense and the unimportant. You are willing to tolerate losing good articles and contributors to make sure of doing that. I am wiling to tolerate some borderline articles to make sure of keeping all the good ones.

In my view, what really harms the encyclopedia are not borderline articles, but spam and bad writing and error. Getting rid of those is what's important. But what harms us even more at a more fundamental level, is the loss of potentially good contributors, for if we continue to lose more than we gain, we will stagnate into obsolescence. DGG (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your account of the speedy-nominated NAS member leads me to a polar opposite conclusion from yours. From my perspective, any article that gives the impression that a NAS member is so lacking in notability as to be a speedy-candidate is sufficiently misleading and sufficiently vacuous that wikipedia would be better off having no article at all until somebody can be bothered spending time to write a decent stub on them. This is also why I consider an articulation of notability to be so important -- and why I'll tend to be quite dismissive of articles that lack such an articulation -- they give no fertile basis for expansion -- they are bland inconsequences providing no germ of information (e.g. specialisation in a specific doctrine, book of the Bible, or such in Hoehner‎'s case), that some editor might likewise be interested in, and so be interested in expanding.

How many contributors, who start off writing short, unsourced stubs (and similar), go on to be valuable contributors? How many of them either wander off to do something else, or simply continue to create malformed articles until dissuaded? My experience of such editors is that they're generally disinterested in either editing beyond a very limited range of topics, disinterested in wikipedia policy, and disniterested in cleaning up their messes. Productive editors, in my experience, tend to be disinterested in boldly going forth into creating new articles until they have learned the system sufficiently well tinkering with minor improvements to existing articles. There may be some confirmation bias in this perception, but I don't think its completely wide of the mark. People tend to be creatures of habit -- and the habits they bring with them to wikipedia, and the habits we let them develop, are likely to be the habits that will stay with them for the period of their contributorship. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

are you actually saying that the man is not notable because the topic he worked on was not important? I wonder if that might be some cultural bias. It also show the misunderstanding of the academic world--the topics most people work on are fairly narrow--But for someone to actually specialize and write a monograph on a broad topic with such enormous literature as an whole book of the bible seems to me a very broad topic, and that CUP published it and half a thousand libraries bought it exceptionally impressive. Famous people --people at the level of Nobel prize winners--have made their entire careers based on one feature of the life of a specific species of mold, or even a single group of genes, or the structure of one single protein, or the discovery of one type of subatomic particle, or one physical law.

as for a stub being superior to no article, all I can say is that such is very fortunately not the present Wikipedia policy; many more people have the will to add to an article than start a new one. The idea of most articles being good at the start is simply incompatible with an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which inherently builds up in a cumulative process.

but more generally, I agree with you about people coming in with bad writing habits; the solution is to teach them better. Not to reject their articles, not to nominate them for deletion and hope they notice it and have time in 5 days to fix it up, but to work with them to improve it. The difficulty is that this takes even more time than fixing an article oneself. i have time to fix (or write) maybe 5 or 6 short articles a week, but working with one or two beginners to help them develop an article themselves is the most that I can manage. The more of us that do it, the better it will get done. I said I came here to add articles, but that's only partially true. I also came here to help others do so. No matter how unteachable someone appears to be, the first step is not to throw them out the door. Even a harsh schoolmaster saves that for the proven dunces. DGG (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The notability problem in a nutshell

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

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

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

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

Spreadin the word.....

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

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

BGC

I see you're on-line, possibly. If you have a minute, can you do a prose edit of an article I just started, Berkeley Geochronology Center? I would appreciate it. I asked at WP:Geology, also, the botany editors tend to stalk me and edit my prose, so if you don't have the time or interest, someone else will get to it, but I might like to try to shape it up into something nicer, sooner. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

first pass done; I assume you are now writing bios of Garniss Curtis and Paul Renne. I will revisit the article at that point. DGG (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It never fails to amaze me how much I need a fellow Wikiepdia editor in real life. Yes and yes, watch-listed redlinks on both. Surprised not to find Curtis article. Renne's a bit obscure outside of the world of geochronology so no surprise to find him omitted. --KP Botany (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)06:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's the depressing part of Wikipedia, seeing how many world-class scientists are omitted from their own articles and from other articles. I can barely find Curtis mentioned in Wikipedia, not in the Zinj article, not in the Java Man article, not in the paleoanthropology article, not in the K-Ar dating article, not in the geochronology article. --KP Botany (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The academic humanities are even worse. And so are the engineers. The humanities is lack of interest, the engineers difficulty in documenting as well. And for physicians, we're top-heavy for the specialties that need to advertise. Check the missing people for the US national academies. The omissions from subject articles has a different cause: the tendency of COI people to enter just the bios and take no further interest. DGG (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the last comment about the COI people entering just bios?

Ah, well, that was a frustrating few hours through science biographies on Wikipedia, trying to add just one article, and winding up red-linking my watch list beyond repair. Also added Kenneth Farley, so we don't have to add him at the last minute. One problem with engineering bios is the limited amount of biographical information available in the public domain on the web. Every time I tried to start an engineer bio I was thwarted by the only reliable biographical information being locked in the, oh, what is that engineering archive IEEE, or whatever, which I can only access at school. I do know about the missing engineers, but don't have the resources on hand to remedy that. I wrote the Curtis and Renne bios from scratch and attached sources from their BGC bios and the first google hits that came up, Wrote the Farley bio from his CalTech web page and a Wikipedia article, deletionists be damned.  ;) --KP Botany (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

the COI people enter the bio, but do not think to edit the subject articles. And my experience is the academics (and their family & students) show their COI almost as frequently by entering over-modest non-explanatory pages as overly self-advertising ones. The hardest of the engineers are the non-academic ones known in the profession as leaders, who do not necessarily publish at all. Businessmen likewise. DGG (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I know what you mean. Still it's an easy omission for new editors to make because the task is rather demanding, but, imo, it's almost more important to get the information in the subject articles than to just enter a bio. The Curtis article was depressing for the magnitude of his omission from Wikipedia and the need to add the information about his contributions to paleoanthropology and geochronology to so many articles. He was only in a few articles, the Louis Leakey article, at least. Renne's probably one of the best known geochronologists in the world, for his contributions, but he also is a major international collaborative scientist, yet he is largely ignored and unknown outside of the scientific community. Acalamari and I occasionally edit some of the overly modest biographies, so I know what you mean in that area also. Yes, in engineers this is the area I tried to work in, civil engineers, mostly. They have newspaper articles, they've built structures (modern ones, mostly), but there is no biographical info. --KP Botany (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are me

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

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

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

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

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

Prods

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

It does not cite any references or sources.

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

Its lead section requires expansion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

why Wikipedians don't agree on episodes

(here, for convenience, as I was writing it for an afd where I decided it does not really apply to the specific issues:
The reasons there is no blanket rule are: First, nobody has every been able to agree on a blanket rule, or even to compromise on this issue. Second , it seems perfectly reasonable to some people including myself that in a series, some episodes are more important/notable/commented on than others. I think that's true for most author's books also. The question is whether it's worth the time debating them. My own preferred compromise is that the default treatment should be to merge, with adequate coverage of each in the merged article. The reason many of the inclusionists on this are not mergists is that in practice the merges almost always result in loss of all significant content, until it becomes an unencyclopedic list. It shouldn't be necessary having to keep full articles when all that's actually needed is to keep the content, but that does seem to be the practical method around here at this time. apparently a few of the deletionists on this issue don't like such a compromise if it means keeping content, because their actual goal is to delete as much content on fiction as possible. Too many articles and also merged content are just teasers, and do not say what actually happens in the plot. This is wholly wrong, merged or separate. WP is not a program guide. DGG (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Honorverse articles

David, I am a big fan of David Weber's Honorverse novels, basically scooping up each one as soon as it appears (I think I have each and every one of Weber's books). Unfortunately, there is no secondary literature on all of that, and the concepts and characters in these novels (not even the major character Honor Harrington), have any real-world notability. So all these articles, including Mesa (Honorverse) are unsourced and unsourcable. In the absence of sources, they all constitute original synthesis by the editors who wrote those articles. I prodded one of them (Mesa), but you unprodded saying that I should propose a merge. How can we merge unsourced information? As a major novel series, I think it is appropriate to keep the major article (Honorverse) despite the fact that all said previously applies to that article, too. But I don't see how articles like Mesa or Adrienne Warshawski could be salvageable. --Crusio (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I agree with you that there are too many separate articles on this general topic. Now, about merging: Material for an article can be taken from the primary source itself, if it is straight description. There is no need of secondary sourcing for uncontroversial non-interpretive content. That takes care of justification for the merge. More generally: Now, you're a fan--has nobody ever published reviews of them? Not even in any of the reliable sf blogs? such blogs have previously been used to support articles. When you say unsourcable, to me that means you have checked every likely print and online source where such reviews might have appeared. Are there no interviews with the author where he may have discussed these books? I think you're more likely to mean that none have come your way that you happen to have noticed. That's what I tend to mean when I say I don;t know of something. I don't say unsourceable unless I have actually done a suitably full search, or when it's one of the few professional topics in the RW where I have an established method for seeing everything published or posted (which in both cases currently rely upon external information services). DGG (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I cannot deny that you have a point there, I did not do a full search. I'm an avid SF reader, but I read the novels, not what people write on blogs... There must be some reviews and interviews, but they will cover the outlines of the books and some of the main characters perhaps, not details like Mesa or minor characters like Adrienne. Note that some of the people that wrote all these articles remark on the Honorverse talk page about the lack of sources and also note that there is a separate wiki for this kind of stuff. I don't think that anybody is served by these articles on non-notable fictional entities/characters. The series is notable (there must be some bestsellers here, probably) and should have an article. All the rest should just redirect there (even the article on the main character, Honor Harrington). --Crusio (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletions over concensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siena College again

An eager new editor, probably a student there, has tried to expand the article. He/she started by cut-and-paste from the college catalog, and I reverted all that; but this is a good-faith person, and I'd appreciate your help there to give 'em a fair shake. Take a look at the article's talk page, and the new kids' as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a somewhat different approach to these articles, which is no doubt why you asked me. Routine descriptive content if not copyvio is in my opinion acceptable & even desirable, though it's nice to have something distinctive and interesting and sourced, in addition. I commented at both places. It will be good to to get this free from the spam and copyvio-- and good to get the ed. with an account free from the vandalism that comes from that ip address. DGG (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I invited you back to this one: fresh eyes, different POV, different phrasing of advice. "I love it when a plan comes together!" --Orange Mike | Talk 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, I commented here mainly to make plain from my side that we are not opposing each other. DGG (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I Love Money 2, Fair use, spoilers, copyright

I am not sure if you are aware of the full history regarding the copyright and spoiler issues with I Love Money 2.

Issue 1 - In a nutshell, there are several of these VH1 and MTV reality TV programs which have been "quoting" the episode preview summaries as posted on the VH1 and MTV websites. These are typically three to four sentences explaining roughly what to expect in the episode. The "quoting" has been using the "quote" template, complete with citation of the source: See Rock of Love with Bret Michaels for example. However, the issue is that the entire preview summary is being copied and pasted into the quote template, along with the citation. One could argue if this is or is not violation of copyright, since it is only three or four sentences per summary, but it is also 100 percent of the summary. It would be interesting to see some WP policy regarding fair use of text in this instance. The official WP fair use policy is not very specific. On the I Love Money 2 page, these quotations were removed in the past couple days, and now some editors have started trying to write new ones. The quality is poor, and will be difficult to substantially improve due to edit warring, POV problems, etc... It is my understanding that summaries of events in particular episodes do not need to be sourced as long as they are factual accounts of what happened on the show. At least there are no copyright issues with these new summaries, just quality issues. These summaries are under constant attack by vandals who are very impassioned about the show and wish to sway the POV.

Issue 2 - In a nutshell, there has been repeated vandalism where editors try to post competition results from future episodes. Sometimes this is based on meticulous viewing of episode previews to try to see who is or is not in the preview, and hence discern who was eliminated. The more responsible editors watching these pages try to remove spoilers based on "future information" as it is unsourced, crystal ball guessing, original research, ...

I hope this helps clear up the issue. I would be happy to have your input on what constitutes "fair use", e.g. the summaries on Rock of Love Bus with Bret Michaels. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No I was not following this. But about the issues you raise:

1. Copyvio is not just a matter of length--copying or even closely paraphrasing complete episode summaries from an outside copyright site is just plain wrong as copyvio, and there is no real disagreement about this here. Legally, there have been clear decisions that such summaries are protected by copyright. The general fair use rule is that the shorter the original work, which in this case in the summary, the less that can be used. A common academic guide would be 10 or 15%. From material like this, I would be reluctant to quote more than a key line of dialog or interpretation-- in quotation marks, and with a specific source. Using these at all even to a permitted extent without attribution is plagiarism, and not allowed here. The place to discuss this further is WT:COPYRIGHT.
2. It's not a good idea anyway--they are almost never encyclopedic, and usually do avoid giving the results or conclusion of the episode. They tend to be written in a rather distinctive way, for their purpose is to maintain the interest of the audience. They are promotional, and we are an encyclopedia. Using such summaries is a violation of NOT PROGRAM GUIDE.
3. This sort of material absolutely does have to be sourced, like everything here. The special nature of descriptions of fiction and other works is that the descriptions can be taken from the primary source of the work itself--in other words, you can view an episode and summarize the facts (but not the interpretations) on that basis, giving an explicit link to the episode source. Ideally, it will have been preserved somewhere citable, as so many programs are. Specific critical events can appropriately be cited in terms of their location within the program. To write these, one should take notes, with timings included.
4. the extrapolation of future information is OR, and is wrong. But if one can actually say what is in the trailer, and this can stand on its own without further OR, I suppose you could use it-- e.g. "The trailer posted at [whereever] shows that at least A, B, and C return for the next episode." The rule is WP:V, which is basic policy. The sport of guessing should be confined to one's blog or the like, or a fan site that will tolerate this. People have always talked about things like this, for the fun of seeing who it is that guesses right--and that is part of the reason for the great interest in these shows!. The place for it is not Wp. Not even the talk page, because we talk there about the article, not the subject.
5. The problem of quality can be solved only by education and example, which is easy for me to say as i do not intend to work on them myself. But I'm a teacher, and I think all teachers find that the way to teach the stubborn is through patient repetition.
6. It is in any case firm policy of Wikipedia that we do not solve content issues or vandalism by deleting the articles that are prone to them. People keep asking for that at AfD on all sorts of different things that cause difficulties, some much worse than this , and the argument is always rejected.

I hope this helps; copy or refer to it as needed. DGG (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

SBS Swiss Business School

Altough it claims to be a college, it is not accredited in Switzerland by the OAQ( oaq.ch). IACBE accrediation doesn't mean anything since it is not recognized by the CHEA (www.chea.org). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning The information about this college on Wikipedia is misleading and self-promotional. 77.58.151.156 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

we include many unaccredited colleges if they are at all notable. Probably we should be sure that we do, for they too are part, though an unpleasant part, of the world, and people need reliable information on them. I will double-check the neutrality of the article, and keep a further eye on it. The best way of showing the nature of the accreditation would be for you to write articles on the "International Assembly of Collegiate Business Education" -- and the " Swiss Quality Certificate for Adult Education Institutions" and other institutions which they also cite--we cn then link to them.. What is the status of "Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs"? DGG (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One needs to distinguish between being accredited or being member of an association such as the "Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs" (ACBSP). A "member" is an institution that has paid annual fees (see: http://www.acbsp.org/index.php?mo=st&op=ld&sid=s1_020acc&stpg=25) but is not accredited. The more prestigious AACSB states following: Membership does not confer AACSB accreditation and should not be interpreted as achieving accreditation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.151.156 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I will check the wording, but the best way of showing it is to actually write the articles on the associations. Why not do so,since you have the information? DGG (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your AfD statement

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

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

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

You raise several issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

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

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

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

Question from power corrupts

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

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

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

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

FYI

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of M.I.High Characters You removed the PROD tag. Ikip (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

blame the guy who nominated it without notifying me. DGG (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've responded to your comment regarding this matter. _TalkIslander 16:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Open Access Blog

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

New York Public Library classes

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

Threshold knowledge

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

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

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

Good Germans DRV

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asteroids

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

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

Declined speedy on Joseph Haslag

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

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

CfD nomination of Category:Library types by subject

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

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

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

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

Mentioned you on AN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

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

NAS

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

Hemispherectomy Foundation

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

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

Pretzel

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

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

About that Death Note episode

In case you don't have it watchlisted, I posted an inquiry back at Talk:Gamble (Death Note episode) in regards to the article title. And about consensus, is it really needed for a horrible page like that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

One can always be bold, but then someone else can always revert. And so I did. If someone reverts it wasn't obvious. If one thinks that someone might revert, it's better to discuss first. I do not object to non-destructive merges for the sake of better organization, or realistic emphasis; in many cases I think nobody reasonably would do so. I do object to destructive merges, without prior consensus. Redirects similarly are not destructive if there is sufficient content in the target article. If there is not, they are destructive. A destructive merge is called an editing change, but it has the practical effect of a deletion. This was a destructive merge. The target was a single line of text in the list. (As a detail, the article was misnamed in the first place, & the target selected without inspection, for it too was misnamed as a non-existent section--as you pointed out, the correct episode name is "Wager".)

The pre-existing article was a very poor quality article, very much more detailed than called for. The material in the list is much too little, A proper compromise is somewhere in the middle. An encyclopedic description of an episode whether in a separate or combination article says what takes place in the episode, not just hints at it. The appropriate length will vary, but both of the present alternatives are outside the reasonable.

We can compromise many of the fiction problems with combination articles, if they are true combination articles. If they are mere listings of episode titles or characters, they are not acceptable compromises. At least, they are not acceptable compromises to those who want reasonably full coverage of fiction. Trying to use such as consensus compromise solutions is only a pretended compromise. Those who want consensus should support proper merges with reasonable preservation of content. DGG (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Eleazar (painter)

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

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

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

Notability of books

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disturbing edits from Canadian IP

Take a look Enigma^msg 04:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

hardblocked, and edits deleted. Semiprotected for a little while as well. DGG (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged, although it appears to be a softblock. I would actually suggest a hardblock in this case. Not sure who it is, but it seems to be an especially nasty one. Enigma^msg 05:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Jews and Scots

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

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

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

Were you able...

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

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

Final warning response!!

Could you explain me why you gave me that warning?
I don't understand, I'm contributing with useful information on Portugal Golf Courses and your just deleting without any sense at all.
This is a very useful and non commercial information. I think all readers will be thankful for that information. Please don't delete it.
But once again, why you want to delete the golf course articles? And help at least try to help me or give some guidance if I'm doing something wrong!

Andrett (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

responded to there. DGG (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Notablility (populated places)

I would like to draw your attention to this discussion. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

commented there. DGG (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

More questions

Hi David. Thanks very much for your previous responses and follow-ups on my questions. Very helpful. Where do I post general article issues? Like if I stumble across an unpatrolled article that has never been patrolled from weeks ago that I don't want to deal with (there are many and I don't want to mess with them all), where can I post it?

Or in a different issue, I just now stumbled across all these "XYZ economy" articles, that seem promotionally and poorly named. For example hydrogen economy, lithium economy, vegetable oil economy etc. etc. We don't have oil economy, coal economy etc. articles. Anyway, I don't want to get too side tracked in this example, but where do I post these types of things? I know I can do individual RfCs, but is there a place for article discussion? Wouldn't that be helpful? Your thoughts appreciated as always. What ever came of the orphan tagging discussion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm always glad to give advice about what other people should work on. If they are being actively worked on, start by putting the necessary tags on it, and explaining on the article talk page using a brief but clear edit summary. (Check those pages first to see if the matter is already under discussion). You can also mention it at the appropriate WikiProject talk page-- in this case WP:WikiProject Energy. (And it does not matter whether or not they have been "patrolled," if you see a problem-- almost all of these they are longstanding articles from before the patrol system.) These different articles are of different qualities: hydrogen economy is a very well established concept. Many of the others possible ones are redirects, and I updated some of the links at vegetable oil economy to show the current titles. Which gave me a hint that a few more title changes might be appropriate. Propose them. On the other hand, when you see an apparently abandoned low quality article, then is the time to be BOLD. DGG (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(copy edited adn clarified a bit my earlier post) Thanks. I still think an AfD or ANI like place just to discuss articles with broad input would be cool. Wouldn't it be great if there was as much interest and discussion of article issues as there is of disputes? I know that's what RfCs are for, but still. What about when you come across something that's never been patrolled and you're not interested. Do you just leave it? Can I post it somewhere? Your talk page? Hahahaha. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

General discussion of how to organize the articles on a topic is one of the intended functions of the WikProjects.

As for the things you don't have time to fix yourself, there are tens of thousands of other active editors. Just do what you can, and do it right, and tag other things you notice. DGG (talk) 06:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they are all too busy discussing whether ScienceApologist is allowed to make spelling corrections. I think the orphan tagging has ceased, at least for now... ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Mostafa Mahmoud

Sorry - I pasted in the wrong translation link. Fixed now. This one is annoying. The subject seems to be a prominent and respected author, but the content almost entirely relies on a self-published bio. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

University of California, Los Angeles

I was surprised to see that UCLA page is nonexistent now. Would you please look into this? Salih (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's there for me. [10] for the redirect and [11] for the actual page, with the boxes at the bottom for all the subarticles. DGG (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's there now. I checked the history of the page and found that for some time the page was under the name University of Califoornia, Loos Angeles!! Salih (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross

SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for a well written, level headed response to the template discussion at WP:EL. You made the point I was trying to make about the value of such links and templates much better than I ever could have.DCmacnut<> 03:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

some comments of yours

Hi. I saw your comments re A Nobody at his editor review and think you covered a lot of what I'm seeing. I don't agree with his, or your, stance on inclusion criteria; I don't see you as disruptive while I consider him quite so. My core issue with him is what you addressed, not his inclusion stance. Casliber is quite inclusionist, is one of my mentors, and I get along with him just fine. I'll keep an eye out for an area where you an I might work well together. That said, it won't be soon as I'm otherwise focused lately (which is a short-term thing). Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will very gladly work with you, or anyone else who is open to compromise in getting issues resolved. I appreciate your offer. DGG (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih (Indonesian for Thank you). Let me know of any areas you think might be productive. I am a reasonable fellow; convincing a fair number of folk of that is the only only way a ban is ever lifted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, I am happy to work constructively with anyone and I created Moon of Pejeng as a good faith gesture in that direction. The subsequent rant against me was out of line and counterproductive. I am more than happy to help you work on articles; I am not interested in being talked down however, because I can and will take criticisms from Casliber and DGG as valid, but I cannot from you given your history, so let them tell me anything of note and I'll gladly avoid lecturing to you. Now if you want more help with articles, drop me a line. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of authors

hey DGG check this out:

• Thomas Swiss
• Dennis Covington
• Robert Lacy
• Mark Levine (poet)

First off, probably a bad idea to start off your post with "what is your problem"....just saying. Second, it is a personal call of whoever reviews the page. I didn't think it was notable. The deleting admin might, ya never know. When you make pages, you should add as much information, references, and sources as you can so it doesn't get marked for deletion. -NeutralHomer March 8, 2009 @ 23:25 Jane Cooper I just don't think a page with 3 paragraphs of information and a couple lists with very little references and some Google Books links makes a page necessary. Again, this is a personal call. -NeutralHomer March 9, 2009 @ 01:40

Like I said, it is a personal call. When someone is reviewing pages on "New Page" patrol, it is their call on what they think is notable. That differs from person to person. What I might think is notable, might be completely different from what the admin reviewing my call thinks is notable....or the person also watching the "New Page" section. It is a personal call. User:Neutralhomer March 9, 2009

I see no "unpleasant pushback". You are upset that your page might be deleted and you are taking it out on the person who has nominated your page for deletion. If that is "unpleasant pushback", well, I think I have had worse. I stand by my call and will not be changing it unless there is information added to the page. - NeutralHomer March 9, 2009

Please see The Zax. NeutralHomer March 9, 2009

lol "I stand by my call and will not be changing it" me too pohick (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Since that was a little over your head, WP:DICK might be a little easier for you to understand. User:Neutralhomer March 9, 2009

lol, answering my question, your problem is an idee fixe, and lack of vocabulary pohick (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

seems someone knows some French, problem with that is, this is the English Wikipedia. Also, nothing is "dominating" my mind for "especially for a prolonged period" as I have long since moved on to other things here on Wikipedia and you are still talking about the same thing. -User:Neutralhomer March 9, 2009

I suppose i must put Notable American author in the text, to make the assertion? pohick (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a great difference between being notable enough to avoid deletion, and the very minimal amount of indication of possible notability that must be indicated to escape speedy deletion. Saying that a person has published a book other than a self-published book is enough to imply possibly notability as an author, and passes speedy. Ir may or may not pass AfD, but that's another matter, based on the rules for creative professionals. . Saying that someone is a professor at a college is enough to pass speedy. it may or may not be enough to pass afd, depending on the rules for WP:PROF.

The very first version of Thomas Swiss, [12] is fully enough to give some indication of notability and pass speedy. As for AfD, Iowa is a flagship university, and in fact one of the leading universities for the teaching of creative writing. A full professor there with multiple books by established academic publishers will almost certainly pass AfD as well.

Dennis Covington , also passes speedy, as the author of possibly significant published works. Whether he will pass afd is possible, but it will depend on reviews of his works. Similarly for Robert Lacy. Mark Levine (poet) very likely will pass afd, as there is at least one reliable good review, from PW.

Speedy deletion is NOT for when an editor thinks something isn't notable. Prod and afd are for that purpose. Speedy is for when there is no plausible indication whatever of notability. all 4 of these articles unquestionably had some indication of that, enough to pass speedy. i dont thing any admin wouldhave speedy deleted them--at least I hope not. I'll comment more specifically at whatever afds get placed. DGG (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello DGG, I had previously posted to Neutralhomer, so I thought I let you now for whatever it is worth that he didn't post here at all, but all above is quoted from Pohick2's talk page who brought it here.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

i pasted his comments for flavor (sorry if any confusion): Robert Lacy got speedy deleted, but restored upon appeal to the admin, AfD discussion here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lacy (2nd nomination); all the others havn't been nominated for AfD (yet). pohick (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I commented a weak keep at Lacy; I have not fully investigated Covington; I hope the others will not be nominated as they will almost surely pass afd. The afds will be the place for further discussion, not here. DGG (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone else sort of signing as you?

Hey. I'm not really sure how to handle this or if I'm just being overly weird, but I wanted to bring this to your attention. User:Milker has been signing their posts as DGG; see this edit. It could just be a coincidence that they want to use the same initials or abbreviation, but I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. If it's your doppleganger or public account, then sorry for being paranoid. Any ideas? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

no, it's not me in an alternate account. I see just that one post, and the first paragraph of what you cited is something I have frequently said, perhaps once in the exact same words. I think it might be a copy and he meant to attribute the argument to me in some fashion. However, I've never used the example he gave, nor do I work in the same area. I will follow this up--thanks for noticing , since I might never have done so.DGG (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Air France Robbery (1967) article

Hello,

I noticed that you removed the deletion notice on the Air France Robbery (1967) article. I understand that the event is most likely real, and there should be existing references in newspapers and biographies as you mention on your edit.

Would it be possible for you to add such references into the article? It seems you are quite knowledgeable about the topic, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to fix the article by adding some real references and explaining how is it that there are so many details of a crime for which nobody ever got prosecuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskilian (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

the basic refs are in the article for Hill. I added one of them. Nobody ever got prosecuted because Hill turned stool pigeon about much more serious crimes. DGG (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Hi David, I recently blocked an anon. IP, and I then realized that part of my understanding of what had happened was wrong. I'd like to lift the block ASAP, but can't find the button to do that! Is there a way to lift a block "out of process," or do I have to go through the unblock rigamarole? -Pete (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

go to the anon's contribution list, select block log from the menu at the top, and then after the entry there's a place to click "unblock", and, a new feature, a place to click "change block". DGG (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, all set. Many thanks for the quick reply! -Pete (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Bravo

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

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

Re: Comments on Others

I didn't call you a "dick" that came from a post, somewhere above, copied by User:Pohick2. I did call him a "dick", while linking to WP:DICK, but only because it was necessary. My apologizes for the confusion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 9, 2009 @ 22:22

Yes, I know you weren't saying it about me. I was advising you to to say it about anyone, at least not on my talk page. Oddly, the practice here is that this doesnt actually count as abuse, but it never helps and is never necessary, no matter whether or not deserved. DGG (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will try not to use it at all (as I normally do). On a side point, where it is used by me above, was copied from User:Pohick2's talk page. I never actually posted on your talk page until this evening. Again, my apologizes for the confusion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 9, 2009 @ 22:42

Primary sources

Hi DGG. Hope this doesn't seem like a routine admin request. I was hoping for your views at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Primary sources. This attempt to gain consensus was sparked by the example in my latest comment. I think that editors should be actively encouraged to back up secondary sources with the primary for simple, isolated facts that may be reported incorrectly in secondary sources. What do you think? Bongomatic 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith in Place

Just a note that an article whose AfD you commented in is now the topic of a Deletion for Review discussion. Deor (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Libraries & the Cultural Record

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

Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms

It so happens my alias is the same as yours. I changed it now.--VGG (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

response

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

Long-winded, sorry. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Are these necessary? I imagine you are watching my Talk page at this point. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I watch about 250 user talk pages. (in addition to the same number of troublesome ips & spammers); all my friends, for example, and everyone for a few days after a message in case they reply there. I must admit, I dont always get to actually check them all, so it is a good idea to leave a talkback so I know to give it priority. .... DGG (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

new p.

Thank you for your help, I am new to wikipedia, and any suggestions/help is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comscholar (talk • contribs) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ALERT!!

I am having some computer problems, and using a slower machine this week. Don't expect as much as usual... DGG (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Magician's Apprentice

You said that it's reasonable to assume that there were reviews, and I could only find one--from Publishers Weekly--stating that it "fails to distinguish itself from other magical coming-of-age tales" and although the main character is a "sympathetic protagonist, Canavan never manages to make the world and other characters distinctive or memorable." I was unable to find anything else (that didn't originate from a blog), although my search could have missed something. However, knowing that she IS a bestselling author it would make sense to wait, as it has only been two and a half weeks since its release. I really didn't think that a single bad review (and the only one from a reputable source that I could find) would make an book notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, though. How long do you suppose I should wait before considering its deletion again? DreamHaze (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

we have never said a book has to be good to be notable. Normally, for most books I would wait till 2 months after publication, then check google News archive , not google, for reviews--it screens out most of the junk. (Google news archive , not google news, because google News goes back only 30 days.) If they are not there by then for new fiction, they won't be. But I've been thinking about this one since I deprodded it--for children's books, the reviews usually come out faster, because they're done from pre-publication copies, so the libraries can have them when people ask for them. This one may never become as popular--or all the fans may buy it anyway & it will get belated reviews as the reviewers catch up. There's an alternative that I suggest--merge the material into the article for the series, including the link to the review--and even a quote from it-- and make the article into a redirect. If more reviews come out, its easy to put it back again. If you need help with that, just ask. DGG (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope I didn't sound rude in my first message, I re-read it and I realized it sounded a lot more frustrated than I felt. When I talked about the review being bad I didn't mean that the fact that it was bad made it non-notable, but in conjunction with the lack of reviews, news, and sourceable material it didn't help any. I think that a merge would be a good idea. It would give me a chance to do some work on the series' article, and it would keep it prepared just in case it does end up becoming popular. Thank you--I'll keep you in mind if I have any trouble. C: DreamHaze (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

not the least rude--I am glad your wrote, because this had stayed in my mind as one of my more dubious decisions, and I might never have actually gotten back to it. DGG (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

On William Timmons

DGG, I'm in need of some advice from an admin, but I don't know many, so you're it. I've been blocked twice recently by User:Ruslik0 for my work on William Timmons; most recently for a single revert of a revert, and before that when I was short of 3RR violation and my "opponents" had about 2 and 4 each. On my talk page he has expressed a siding with the opinion of those I'm haggling with. I've been very active on the article and its talk page for months, trying to resolve a mess that was caused largely by User:Collect but now being supported by User:THF and sometimes another guy. We just got a couple of new opinions there to the effect that my version is OK, so I put it back (it had been reverted this morning). This may be seen as again violating Ruslik0's "suggestion" that I rspect a 0RR rule. If he steps in again, after I've asked him to recuse himself based on his expressed siding with the other guys, would you be so kind as the talk to him or something. Any advice would be appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

you are sufficiently vindicated; let the details be. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I expressed my opinion because I believe that the Dicklyon's variant may violate WP:BLP. Dicklyon is actually trying to create an impression that Timmons held the same position as Thurmond and it was he (Timmons) who made the decision to deport Lennon. However there is no evidence was for the former, and the latter is not true too (Mitchell probably made a decision). So I stated that I thought that the THF' variant was less problematic from point of view of the BLP. Regards, Ruslik (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no relevant BLP consideration for anyone in a political administration or career, short of a downright lie or purely gratuitous abuse. There is a NPOV consideration, of reporting fairly. As for my own views, Ruslik0, we read it differently. I have commented further at the article talk p. DGG (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

DGG, mind if I respond to Ruslik here? I'm not trying to create any impression; quite the contrary, all of my edits have been to make the article less opinion-based and more just reporting what's in reliable sources. Saying that the memos were found via an FOIA request, which is what they were most recently objecting to, is in no way going to create any impression about Timmons's motivations. Same with the previous rounds of objections by Collect, who didn't want to say there was a failed deportation attempt, and didn't want to say that it related to the upcoming Nixon re-election campaign; I just want to report on the existence of these memos to and from Timmons, what they were about, and how they came out, since that turns out to be a topic on which there's more published than anything else related to Timmons. I have carefully addressed every BLP and RS complaint; the current complaints about so-called "SYN" and "COATRACK" are nonsense, and the complainer won't even specify why he keeps saying those terms, simply claiming that he has explained it before; as an attorney, he knows when he's out of evidence, and resorts to other tactics. It's really quite annoying that he does so, and that you interfered by blocking one side in a content dispute. Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And now that THF has summarily reverted again and still doesn't provide any detail about why, how do you two suggest we proceed? I'd be happy to try another RfC, but we only brought in one new opinion last time around, and THF is happy to ignore him. Or we could try mediation. Or what? Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

we will continue to discuss the issue on the talk p. DGG (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Eleazar

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

A favor?

Based on your comment in the JJ Greenberg AfD [13], would you kindly review the prod on Virginia Admiral? There is a link on the discussion page to make it easier.
Thanks. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a full obit, so of course she;s notable. And the reason she got a full obit, is because she has paintings in major permanent museum collections, which is the basic criterion for creative artists. Now just remove the prod and add the information about her career to the article.DGG (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Cerejota (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of neopets species

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of neopets species, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neopets species. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Q about PROD contest on Line 3, Guangzhou Metro

Less concerned about the notability issue than the travel guide aspect of it... any thoughts?

Thanks. MLauba (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

a travel guide to me means directions from one place to another, and quality rankings of places. This information is however just about this particular metro line--there is more that can and should be said, see for example a more fully developed article like F (New York City Subway service) . You see that the individual stations are normally considered each to merit an article. Where the disputed territory is now, is bus routes.DGG (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I'll keep that in mind for the future. Cheers. MLauba (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani article

Hi. I went back and looked at that article and I still have no idea who this guy is. The titling convention is wrong, the author chose to identify everyone by meaningless initials and the best guess I can make is that he's some sort of judge. I'm not de facto against this article, but it's nearly useless in its current state. I'll gladly write a quick stub about this guy regardless of knowing zilch about the Pakistani judicial system, but the existing title would make a very implausible redirect. I'll let you know when I'm done. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I just Googled the name and I've come up with practically nothing on this person beyond a couple of casual mentions in news articles. Nothing biographical whatsoever. A lot of his other similar contributions have been speedied and he's created yet another unreferenced stub. Notability is established and I hope to do better with this one. I've offered him some advice on his talk page as well. I hope it'll help. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem article. May people in India & Pakistan seem to have inherited the British habit of referring to distinguished people with initials instead of first names, and in a larger countries like theirs' it is particularly difficult. There are also no usable central newspaper and periodical indexes that I'm aware of, even in print, & publishing generally is decentralized and chaotic. We are going to have to someone get some more info on Justice (Retd) M.A. Rasheed. DGG (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Twofer

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UMAUD Environment and Natural Resources studies is now ready for comments, and I'd love to learn more about where to draw the line on db-spam for articles that have a promotional tone but are for non-profit or educational programs or purposes. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Virginia county/city NRHP lists

Hi ... I'm responding to your message on my talk page. I consolidated the content of (I think) 23 individual Virginia county/city NRHP pages onto the main Virginia NRHP page. At first, in an effort to clean up after myself, I was creating redirects on the original county/city pages, but then thought it might be best to just delete them. I created all of the original pages relatively recently and I don't think they have many incoming links (if they have any at all). If you feel that it would be best to set up the redirects instead, I suppose I could do that. My recent work has also rendered the following pages obsolete:

National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties A-B
National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties C
National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties D-G
National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties H-M
National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties N-R
National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties S-Z

I was planning on tagging them for deletion. Do you think it preferable to redir them to the Virginia NRHP page instead? --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is something which should be decided at the project. I'm not centrally involved on these, just came across some on WP:CSD. My feeling on things like this is that they should be uniform across WP for the US, and this is better than working out each state by logic one at a time. DGG (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding a new category for SURVIVORS of the Holocaust

Hi DGG: Regarding the two CfDs at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Holocaust victims and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Nazi concentration camp victims, while I agree that the categories need to be sharpened, but if they are going to become categories about people who DIED only in Category:People who died in The Holocaust and Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps respectively, then in all fairness and following good logic and historiography, following that reasoning, there should now therefore be two categories. ONE for those who DIED and one for those survivors who LIVED such as Category:Holocaust victims who survived and Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps that would allow for that. I am positive you will agree and kindly take a look at the two above CfD discussions again and note that that should be so, that both those who died and those who survived and lived, and who were/are of course notable, such as Elie Wiesel; Joel Teitelbaum; Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam and many others that I know as being important to Jewish history, and there are many others like this from many other groups. It would be a great shame and travesty if those names were expunged only "because" they survived and escaped the fate the Nazis had wanted for them by having lived and not died in the Holocaust and/or the death and concentration camps. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

responded there--we seem to already have something suitable. DGG (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Carmen L. Robinson

I have made a couple comments to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson. Unless someone requests userfication or something happens before the primary or something happens other than her winning the primary that makes this person notable, my comments won't have any practical impact. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks for the heads up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clickety click

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

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

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

You are giving me conflicting information

Eustress tells me a separate page is necessary, you tell me not to do it. Can you two figure this out please and get back to me. I can't do both. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

there is no other such article in Wikipedia. Anyway, all you have to do to recover the material is get the right version in the edit history and copy from there. I will continue on the talk p. of the article. DGG (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is: Howard Adelman, from which Eustress removed all the list of references during a GA review for that article and created a new List of works by Howard Adelman. I created the list page for Wengert using exactly the same format and language Eustress used. MY preference was to keep them in the article about the author of them, but I was told this was inappropriate. Is it asking too much to expect you cops to get your story straight? I'm trying to help make an encyclopedia here, and you are putting obstacles in the path. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, now we can deal with both of them together. I'm waiting for Eustress to comment. This has come up a few times otherwise, so we will probably need some sort of attempt at a general discussion. If not, I can try nominating that one for deletion and see what happens.... We need to decide 3 parameters: first, what is the level of notability required to justify this second, how many works are needed to make it worthwhile, and third and most troublesome, how complete they need to be. It's been argued for creative writers that these should include every book review and newspaper column the person has written--which for some people will be in the thousands.

It might include every speech, every interview--as is the standard of scholarly bibliiography My view is that such is not appropriate for for a general encyclopedia like this. My own standard for academics is every book, and the 5 most important articles. I don;'t know what people will think in general. I know some science people have objected to any attempt at complete lists, and the humanities, at anything less. My feel with respect to the social sciences is that an additional article is usually undue emphasis, as is a complete list of works. But I could argue in the opposite direction just as well. DGG (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Eustress, who is a Yeoman Editor with more than 9,000 edits, has told me: Wikipedia articles should consist mainly of prose, while short embedded lists are appropriate (see WP:EMBED). For long lists, a stand-alone list is not only preferred but necessary per Good article criteria 3b. The Works section (in the main article) highlights some of his works while providing a link to the extemporaneous list, and the section says he is "The author, coauthor or editor of 23 scholarly books and over 100 articles and book chapters...." Articles and lists are treated differently on Wikipedia (WP:FA vs. WP:FL). Mervyn Emrys (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't do it by comparing edits. If we did, then since I have about 54,000 according to WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, I would be about 6 times as likely to be correct than he. Now, this is of course a weird way of looking at it; there are a few I think wrong whenever we disagree ranking "higher" than me, and many much better than I am ranking "lower". Nor can one just quote general guidelines, for it all depends on the interpretation. A Wp article should consist mainly of prose, yes that much is generally accepted. Beyond that, opinions vary. The GA rules are neither policy nor guideline. It's a WikiProject, accepted in general by the community. There is no rule against nominating a GA for deletion or merging, and it has happened. Different working groups have the own ideas: most people who work on academics remove all but the top articles from a list, and put them nowhere--except for the truly famous. We have many such projects going their own ways, and sometimes they conflict. The problem here is consistency. I go by the basic rule, that we are a general encyclopedia. Whether we should try to be a general bibliography as well is an interesting question. I do not rule out the possibility. GS does pretty well, but we could probably do better. DGG (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, I don't really care who has more edits. I just want to know how to do it so I don't get into an argument with somebody. In this case, you both insist you are correct, and I am left with no real guidance at all. I thought they should be in the article. That is where I put them originally. Then somebody else told me they should be separate. So what happens now? If I put them in the article, you may be happy but I catch hell from somebody else. If I make them separate, somebody else is happy, but you give me a hard time. Do you suppose the two of you could discuss this and reach an agreement so I'm not caught in the middle? That's all I ask. The current situation seems untenable, and I just want to get some editing done without people hassling me all the time about what I do. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I recognise that it's unfortunate and unfair to you that you are in the middle, and I shall continue this elsewhere as there are several general issues involved, both involving bibliographic lists, and involving the use of the FA criteria. There are quite a number of different of ways to do this, and I do not want to focus unduly on this individual articles Norman Wengert and Howard Adelman. While I'm looking at them, though, I may do some touch-ups. (And whether the bibliography is separate or in the article, it should be divided at least between books, and articles.) But I want to mention first two things. WP:EMBED does not say that long lists should go in separate articles, and offers no guidance at all on that point; nor does WP:LIST, though that is the place for the justification of there being Bibliography lists at all. Second, the FA guidelines,\ do not say that a full bibliography must be included. DGG (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity question

With regards to your comment here, I'm curious as to where you went to school for secondary and tertiary education. I'm just purely curious because of thinking about this debate—you don't need to tell me if you'd rather not, but I thought I'd ask in case you can give me more info to consider. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've worked at an Ivy for many years, and its the prep school that counts. DGG (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on proposal

Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama

I have an outline of a lengthy and legitimate article at User:THF/Obama with not a single "nutball conspiracy theory" in it. I'll draft it off-wiki this weekend. I encourage editors to participate in this project by sending me sources (or perhaps fully drafted paragraphs) rather than battling at DRV or on the Talk:Obama page about intermediate stages. If we present a fully-sourced, well-written neutral article, there shouldn't be a problem -- and if there is, it will be pretty damning of Wikipedia. THF (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacks against the Messiah at the Gates of Rome

Dear DGG, the Messiah at the Gates of Rome is again being attacked and harassed. Please come help. Thank you, Das Baz 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Islam and civil rights

Hi. I'm puzzled that you de-prodded Islam and civil rights. I thought the purpose of a prod was to make it clear that there are potentially fatal problems with an article that can however be fixed, and to put pressure on the authors to do so. It's not a subject I know much about but I can spot POV at a thousand paces. I was rather pleased with how politely I'd expressed this in the prod - not my usual snarl, at all. No point in biting newbies but rules is rules and as it stands the article is horrible. That's what prodding is for.

BTW this is one of a group of related articles created or edited by the same small group of people (or just one person with several hats). All claim to be "constructed by students working on a university project" although there's no evidence of it and if so it's a pretty poor course. Copyvios and POV abound. Have a look at User_talk:Vote_Cthulhu, Talk:Hinduism_and_science and the articles edited by 134.154.240.39, for example.

So pretty please, re-prod it. :-)

andy (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

if you think the article is fixable, tag it with a cleanup tag. If you think it is not, send it to AfD. PROD is when you want to delete an article & think it will be uncontested. DGG (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - I've never seen it in those terms. It's not what the prod notice itself says ("If you can address this concern... please edit this page and do so... etc") and I've prodded articles plenty of times then de-prodded them when the author woke from his slumber and fixed it. OK, I know it's supposed to be for "uncontroversial" deletions but the notice that the author sees says, essentially: hey, fix it!, and prod is definitely not just for uncontested deletions - that's clear from WP:PROD. So go on, do, just re-prod it and see if anyone bothers to fix it. Go on, please... andy (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it works that way also--as does afd,. Deletion is not supposed to be for improving articles, but the threat of deletion does sometimes work very effectively. It only works, of course, if the The prod notice is meant to be different from the speedy notice, in explicitly permitting the author to remove it. As for actions, why not talk to Hsharif324 and ask him if he needs help to complete the article? There's no need to poke him into working on it, because he is working on it. It's a new article. He was working on it yesterday.If you cannot help him, at least let him continue. There is no deadline. Personally, I think it takes more than 5 days to write an article like this properly. DGG (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln High School (West Virginia) Prod

Just so you know, I left this somewhat incoherent message at the author's talk page. I don't know if there is something short with better wording that can be inserted, but I wanted to make sure the new editor got a somewhat personal message, hoping to stave off frustration and abandonment. Thanks for deprodding it.74.69.39.11 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Criticism of Barack Obama

• As you are an experienced editor, I would like to ask some advice. Is this article a lost cause? What would be some constructive ways forward? Or, is this somthing to leave alone. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

it's partly the cumulation of general frustration about all the articles on the campaign, which have been a disgrace since the primaries started, partly a reaction to the utter idiocy and malevolence of some of the actual criticism & to the bigoted way that other sources are handling it, and partly that we simply do not know what to do about articles of that sort. I could argue either side of the matter. I just now said what I had to say about the article. My advice to you, is that perhaps someone who can write intelligently about topics that are much under-represented in Wikipedia might want to go back to them, rather than american politics. DGG (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question....

There was a real misunderstanding on that issue between his username and the fact his article had been tagged as vandalism. I really screwed it up, but I hope I set it straight. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

mediawikiblacklist

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

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

Lidia Rudnicka

Not in your capacity of admin, but as someone who knows how to find out if a person's academic work is cited and significant, could you take a look at Lidia Rudnicka? Thanks, Bongomatic 11:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I expanded the article a bit. The major notability is probably not trichology, a much more problematic article. She seems to be borderline by international research standards--the question is whether her admin post as chair at her university is sufficient. DGG (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Obliged, sir. Bongomatic 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

DRV

Hi DGG
I have a question about DRV, and I had noted you down as my go-to guy for that :)
I was approached by Smanu (talk · contribs) who wants to create the article The Best Damn Tour. It was (AfDed 15 months ago and indef protected following a number of recreations. The AfD was before the tour started, and from a couple of references that are a available now (see my talk) I think that one could build an article now that passes WP:N.
I'm not quite sure how we usually handle cases like these here. I was thinking about just unprotecting it since, from all I can tell, the concerns from the AfD no longer apply. I asked MangoJuice who closed the AfD for his blessing, but he thinks I should take it through DRV. He's right that it's been effectively salted, but I still find it unnecessary since I expect a SNOWed "allow recreation".
I've only been at DRV a few times, so as I said I'm unsure how this is usually handled. Does this need discussion there, or can I just unprotect it?
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Two ways to go: 1/expand the section in The Best Damn Thing until it obviously shows notabillity, or 2/create the proposed article in user space. You have the right to unprotect, but we try to avoid such conflicts between admins, tho it does not amount to wheel-warring unless he reverts you. Perhaps when he's shown the full new article he'll change his mind. Otherwise, DRV is least likely to get involved in secondary arguments. I seem to remember there have been other problems here with articles relating to that singer. DGG (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The admin who protected it is actually no longer active, so it's a bit more complicated. :) Usually, if an article is recreated (outside G4) we don't ask many question, so I thought it's a bit of a waste going through DRV. But of course if there have been long term problems in that area (which of course is likely with an indef protected redirect) then it's certainly the right forum after all.
Thanks! Amalthea 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

when the admin isnt around (sorry, I though t you meant it was Mangojuice) normally one just unprotects according to ones own judgment. The practice of not undoing each other is to reduce conflict among the admins who are around. But if Mangojuice felt DelRev was best he may have been remembering what i am half-remembering.DGG (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

glad to hear that...

you're all fixed :) I was in the same boat this time last year and I still <3 my new toy StarM 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

more or less working , anyway. DGG (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rousso

I know dang well a lot of the skeletons, as I was a stamp dealer at the time. Most, however, was not published in an RS available online, and the major stamp weekly got lots of ad money from him - even though its customers did not buy <g>. The court records are "primary sources" which means that WP does not like using them. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florentina Mosora

Hi DGG, would you mind having a look at this AfD? I'm vacillating between delete and keep myself and your input would be appreciated. --Crusio (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Look

Hi David Can you give this another look, per the point I raise. If you find reasonable academic substantiation, please let me know and I'll change my vote accordingly. I suspect that you share my concerns regarding using the wiki to publish OR. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

look I did. DGG (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak and regular

I'm not sure how to sort this vote out [14]. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but this part seems like a second vote: "*Keep as an actress, as having played major roles in multiple films. As a scientist "e Chair of Oceanography[4] at the University of Liè" would seem notable. Getting a complete list of citations in this subject for European work of the period is a little iffy--I'll see what I can do." Was it left by someone else? Am I missing something. Not a big deal to me. I think you deserve two votes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I clarified it to a straight keep. DGG (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

NYC

Sorry, broke my leg a few weeks back and am laid up, so I'll be out of action for a bit. Good luck with it. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

TV episodes

Hi DGG. Apologies in advance for posting here on a topic directly addressed elsewhere. However, I'm interested in your reply only and not those of others who would inevitably pile in there (hey, they may show up here, too).

Even if "popularity is one form of notability" (which I will not address other than to note that many disagree), how does the notability of a series (at some undefined point in time) lead to the irrebuttable conclusion that every episode should have its own article? Bongomatic 21:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I worded it wrong. I support the principle that popularity = notability. I do not think the application of it to every episode of every mildly significant show is appropriate. For almost all, I'd rather compromise of combination articles, and I have amended my reply accordingly. The level of importance/popularity/significance/notability for every episode having an article is as I see it, Star Trek and I Love Lucy and possibly Sex in the City. If we needed a number for just popularity, I'd start anorder of magnitude higher. Proposing 2 million showed a lack of knowledge of the medium. DGG (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Voting time. Any television series that has at least a million viewers, may have an article for every episode (wow ... what a section heading!) seems to be that the popularity of the series would be sufficient reason not to delete or merge separate articles on every single episode. This seems to me something that ought to be rejected out of hand.

Your more general observation, which is that popularity implies notability doesn't actually seem to me to be inconsistent with the caveat in WP:N:

It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic — although those may contribute.

Indeed, if you ask me (in priviate—I'll deny ever saying this and I expect you to immediately delete this edit in its entirety!), the people who claim that "notability is not popularity" are getting it backwards. The caveat is pointing out that there are notable things that are not popular, not so much that there are popular things that are not notable.

That said, I think that the sourcing-based guidelines for notability are more sensible than arbitrary numerical ones. Bongomatic 10:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. As you realize, I disagree with the entire thrust of WP:N, and although we have no consensus on having something to replace it with,perhaps we can obtain consensus for changes to particular applications. I agree with you completely though on the meaning of "notability is not = popularity", and I think I have said it somewhere in public several times, and anyone is welcome to quote it as my opinion, , that the meaning is that everything sufficiently popular is notable, and a great many other things besides--things that are either significant in their field, or of historic importance, for example. the proof of this interpretation of yours and mine is that the meaning of "notability is not fame" can only be that things that are not famous can also be notable. Everything famous certainly is. DGG (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

David Yermack (finance professor)

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

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

Re: Hypercubist

So what is the point of the talk page if no communication happens? Once again my page is deleted even though I believe the argument stands. I am defining a term used in a contest, and even eliminated the sponsors name. No one has ever launched a vehicle in North America this way, but we can't have a wiki article on it? Could my points on the talk page even be addressed? I guess because I'm new, I don't count? Please respond and allow the page to stand.

regards

Mackb1991 (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Brian MacKayMackb1991 (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I had replied, at some length, with some positive suggestions, at User talk:Brianmackay, the account you used to write the article. See my explanation there, and an addendum this morning. Considering that the entire thing is, " an online “audition” which requires participants to continually update their own contest web page and demonstrate both creativity and social networking skills" I view the article as an attempt to use Wikipedia as part of this campaign. We can continue the discussion there. You have a choice of following my advice for how to write an acceptable article, or making use of WP:Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on uCoz DRV?

What's your take on the DRV? To me it seems like its clear that WP:N isn't the issue, yet people continue to endorse with the same reason. I'm starting to get rather concerned that this could have the effect of setting a precedent invalidating these guidelines/policies as well as have an effect towards invalidating the AfD/DRV process. Is it the norm now for editors to now ignore these things? (Wikipedia sure has changed a lot since I was previously active in years past...) Tothwolf (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

At Wp there are no precedents, and guidelines inherently have exceptions. This ought to permit needed flexibility, but what it actually permits randomness, bias, and special interests in decision making. My first sentence could be rewritten more cynically as: At Wp, there are no precedents if one does not want to use them, and all guidelines have exceptions if one does want to use them. For the not totally obvious decisions, I think AfD gets it wrong at least 20% of the time. For those that come to Deletion Review, the percentage is higher, probably just a little less than 50%. The ket factor is not the strength of the article, but the strength of the support and the opposition. I do not mean my view is always right, but the same numbers will hold no matter what general view one takes. DGG (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen far too much biased stuff lately. I think the thing bothering me the most about this particular article is that it most likely never should have gone to AfD in the first place. The other thing I'm concerned about is that it isn't the only article out of the dozens I saw go though AfD as part of this particular batch of "house cleaning" that can be properly sourced. While some of them might indeed be outright junk, some are extremely easy to source and contained information that people might find useful. At least it should be easier to turn this into a much better article now that more reliable sources are coming to light.
I'm still trying to catch up on what all has happened on Wikipedia in the last 2-3 years and I really can't say I really like the new attitudes I'm seeing. What happened to the old Wikipedia that was fun, where you could easily find a dozen people all working together to build a group of articles? I just don't see this happening anymore. Now it seems like a large number of people are focused only on article retention or deletion; "keep it all" vs "get rid of all the junk (and its junk if I say its junk)" and its having the effect of harming Wikipedia.
This [15] in particular really bothers me. It actually shows how an article that was important and useful to someone went through AfD with basically no informed discussion. (MogileFS AfD) The WP:RS issue could be dealt with easily (and I have the background to do it) but then someone would just claim WP:N. I know this is a symptom of a much much larger issue and I just wish I knew how to fix it.
--Tothwolf (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: fictional places

I don't really want to do a merge. I don't think that these places really stand enough merit to have mention of them on their own. Really I was trying to give the user an option that wouldn't piss him off. I didn't realize that he was a sockpuppet or I wouldn't have bothered. Matt (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, a merge doesn't give them mention of their own --it just puts some information about them into the other article. I agree that they are ridiculous for separate articles. DGG (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of deletion tag

First, there is a democratic process when contesting a deletion. Users are generally not authorized to remove deletion tags; rather users are encouraged to discuss. As for Norton LiveUpdate, the information present cites 4 sources. All of them primary and directly affiliated with Symantec. The article combined is barley a paragraph and can be inserted as a footnote as needed. Or not mentioned at all. TechOutsider (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsdier

There are two circumstances where one does not remove deletion tags: if the article is under discussion at AfD, or if it is a speedy tag and one is the author of the article. Neither applies here: This was a proposed deletion. Anyone, even the author in fact, can contest a Proposed deletion by removing a tag. People are advised to either improve the article or explain why the tag is not valid. I explained that there was a possibility with a merge , and , if so, then the merge is, according to WP:Deletion Policy, preferred to deletion--Deletion is the Last resort. You seem to agree, though the way we would do it is probably not as a footnote. You were not wrong to tag the article, but neither was I to untag it. The way to get a consensus discussion is to take it to AfD. Ihave no idea what will be the decision there: probably to merge, or at least make a redirect, rather than delete outright, but Afd is unpredictable. DGG (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedying dogs

Hey DGG,

If I may, if dogs are allowed on Recent Deaths, surely they can be speedied. Otherwise, it would be representation without taxation. :) Love, your friend Y. -- Y not? 03:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Propose it if you like. It has failed the last 5 or 10 times ,but who knows what will happen around hear. You might want to read the previous discussion on pets at the CSD talk atchives first. ,If we're going to discussing t, we would do better to have our talk at the right place & get some attention.DGG (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No no, this was just in jest. No intention of proposing anything. -- Y not? 17:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How to order takeaways online

Hi I realise that a G11 is not totally correct but I was wondering if it was worth invoking WP:IAR and speedily deleting it per your prod rationale? --DFS454 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not like to speedy via IAR unless the article is harmful in some way G10 and G3 do not cover, which almost never happens. Getting rid of an article which is totally wrong for WP in 5 days is sufficiently fast. DGG (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on how to deal with editors who flagrantly disregard guidelines

Hi DGG. Could you tell me your views of how to deal with a situation like the one I described here on Uncle G's talk page? Thanks, Bongomatic 16:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think much of the GNG myself. I do not consider that anything with 2 of what count here as RSs is necessarily notable, nor the other way around. to be notable one needs to accomplish something notable. But the consensus on the standing of a NYT obit to prove notability is clear, and those who try to delete against consensus will not succeed, & if they do it enough times they will be noticed. There's no need to deal with them personally about it. Neither you nor I are appointed as final judges. DGG (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Let the results speak for themselves. Bongomatic 05:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

Xclamation point has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! '
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DRV

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

To the rescue?

("Opined", hmm.) Having torpedoed John McBride (photographer), nasty mean evil deletionist that I am, I now feel inclined to save it. However, the crumbs of reliably sourced notabilitude are few. I wonder what you might opine. -- Hoary (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That his works are in one major collection is halfway to notability. If another one can be found , it would meet the requirements of creative professionals and nothing more need be shown. Hoary, this place is full of actual nasty mean deletionists. You don't really qualify. DGG (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't? {sniff} I must try harder. -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You have truly formidable competition over there. What you would need to compete at the highest levels there is a degree of suspicion and self-righteousness that few people can attain. DGG (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

But you really don't know what you can achieve until you try. Bongomatic 07:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at that very AfD I've now even been accused of having perpetrated acts of niceness. At this rate, somebody's going to accuse me of having a civil tongue. Still, I can hardly wait till my "nice" creation of Anne Wilkes Tucker is hit with an AfD. (Make my day, mwa ha ha.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't tempt me... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly deranged

This would be an excellent case to take to Arbcom. The basic principle is whether ordinary users should have to suffer clearly deranged or unhinged cranks and lunatics when they are trying to do a job of cleaning up the encyclopedia. - Who shall do the paperwork? Shall I? Peter Damian (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

the posting yours' was immediately in response to seemed innocuous enough. My answer to your question is that whatever we suffer, we must not call them so. DGG (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)