User talk:DGG: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:27, 20 February 2012

Current time: 12:13, May 16 (UTC)

ARCHIVES

Reminders

Topical Archives:

BLP (Biographies of Living People)
Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , Sourcing,
In Popular Culture, Fiction, Bilateral relations.
Academic things & people, Journals, Books & other publications,
Wikipedia Ambassador Program

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb, Mar-Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2012 Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec

Public Broadcasting Act of 1967

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

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

Would you consider being my mentor?

Hello Mr. Goodman,

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

Thank you so much for your consideration,

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

International Relations Class of 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another expert who finds us unwelcoming

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

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

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

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

Your question about Genetic Alliance

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

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

Provident Personal Credit redirect

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

Request to mentor a small group of students

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

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

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

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

What journal articles should NOT contain?

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

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

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

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

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

There is more than one valid way of working here. Some people prefer to create only high quality articles, even though they may do very few of them. Some prefer to create many verifiable articles of clear notability even though they may not be of initially high quality. As this is a communal project, I think every individual person is fully entitled to do whichever they prefer, and the thing to do about people who prefer otherwise than oneself is to let them work their way, while you work yours. The only choice which is not productive is to argue about how to do it, rather than going ahead in the way that one finds suitable.

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

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

A cupcake for you!

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

List of most popular missing articles

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

Discussion at CFD:Science writing

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

Category:American novels by century

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

Well Written

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

An apple pie for you!

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

Books books books

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

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

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

books

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

Dazzpedian

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

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

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

You get a lot of messages!

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

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

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

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

Reply requested

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

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

Actors

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

Talkback

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Question about deletions (another admin)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I have your input, please?

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

the discussion also showed consensus for making (unspecified) improvements to the Article Wizard and giving more attention to the Articles for Creation process.

and

Almost everyone who commented on it seems to think that the Article Wizard can and should be improved. There were also repeated concerns about making sure that the Articles for Creation process gets more attention so it does not become clogged and proposed articles get the improvements they need. Participants on both sides of the discussion agreed on these points.

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

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

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

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

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

Avaya AFD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

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

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

Speedies

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

WP:AUTHOR

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia Loves Libraries

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

Discussions about citations for notable alumni

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks. I don't want to give the impression that there is conflict between us about the general matter of handling ELs--improper ELs are something we both consider it a priority to get rid of. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think first I do owe you an apology, when first looking through the contributions, I actually thought it was you ... there is considerable overlap in the articles both edit, and of the 'opposers' of XLinkBot you are one of the strongest. But things clearly did not match up (even though there were some points that made it likely, others made it very unlikely). I decided to wait and see whether the IP would screw up (which they did in the end).

It would be good to have a re-analysis of the reverts of XLinkBot. I've done an analysis of 30 MySpace reverts quite some time ago (1-2 years), and at that point, 29 of the reverts were 'good' ('superfluous links': MySpace of individuals or old members on band-pages, non-existing MySpaces, unrelated MySpaces, plain spam, fanpages, etc. etc), only one was a case where it was the actual MySpace of (IIRC) the band (though the official bandpage was on that page as well - I would describe that as 'I would not have reverted, but not added either'). I did a couple of months ago a quick-check of 10 YouTube reverts, and that contained 2 copyvios .. a significant concern. Yes, more and more YouTube become official, still way way more is either unsuitable in the first place, not official or even plain copyright violation, I do not believe there is a major shift in the percentage of official video's on YouTube.

Surely, there will be reverts of good links, but I think we need to see it in percentages of the total reverts on a domain (and if the percentage of reverts of good links, in relation to the badness of the other reverts, becomes too high, then indeed such domains should be removed from the list). If you put yourself to it, it is possible to find a lot of allowed YouTubes, Twitters, MySpaces, etc. etc. (see the edits by the IP that started this discussion). But I still believe that by far most of them, when added by 'new' users (who are not aware of our policies and guidelins), are not suitable. Of course, all should be personally analysed on one end, on the other side, reminding editors quickly that they have to take WP:EL/WP:NOT/WP:COPYRIGHT etc. into account is also important. And with 18 edits which add external links per minute (46 links added per minute) it is impossible to check them all by hand (and preferably in the first couple of minutes after addition). XLinkBot is extremely soft, tries to be friendly, especially on its first revert. And it does not get too often to AIV. One needs to 'push' it, and most of the editors that get to a level 3 or level 4 warning do go 'yell' at the bot first .. if only this IP would have done that after having been reverted 4-5 times, I might have noticed earlier and resolved it (I've now added a detection for this to the bot); we've had workarounds built-in ever since the very beginning of the bots that work this, most now also accessible to all admins on-wiki). This type of editors, editors who are continuing to add good links and are continuously reverted, are pretty, if not extremely, rare.

Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the same problems you do. I rework a lot of organization pages, and I remove youtube and the like from the EL section if there's a regular web page, just like I remove all the links to the internal pages of the main site. (Hey, can you think of an automated way of detecting that particular problem?) (What I see more of in the areas I work is valid Facebook pages than YouTube pages, but I avoid working in popular music and related areas, which I think is where YouTube is prominent). Certainly the percentage of bad links to such pages is on the order of 99%, but that 1% is still a substantial number. I recognize the need with our volume of material to have computer assisted tools for editing; I don't consider the problem is mainly with the bot--or other bots, but the editors who think like bots, or who completely trust them.

However, I admit that I have extended good faith a number of times when it hasn't been present and other people would have been more skeptical; I prefer it to the opposite. Incidentally, I have carelessly edited a few times when logged out , but I think I have always asked for oversight. I don't do POINTY things, but I will sometimes defend those who do if I think the point is important. I know I am working in some areas fairly near the limits, and so I try to be extra careful not to go beyond them. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That 1% is about the amount I guess that gets reverted wrongly on that type of links. I do agree, of those editors in that 1% some will be bitten (what, of all the reverts, good or bad, some will be bitten by a friendly remark that their link is not appropriate), and that is an issue, but also a small part of editors is bitten when you leave a (non-bot) personalised message on their talkpage. I do that sometimes, and I do still get yelled at, or blindly reverted, or editors just never return. I know, c'est le ton qui fait la chanson (sorry, don't have a reference for this quote), but sometimes that 'ton' does not even make a difference.

You said somewhere, that you manage to convert promotional editors .. you actually have to group them. You have the promotional editors who are here to promote a person, a company, or an organisation - editors who are often specialists in an area and would be an asset to Wikipedia when converted - you have the 'promotional fans' - who only care about their subject and putting them in the best possible light, they don't care being converted and doing something else - you have the SEO's - who are only out for money, they edit what they get paid for (and often, also their own company when they are here anyway) - and true spammers (sildenafil, tramadol, muscle enhancers ...), they only care to have their links here. Every converted specialist is one, and that should certainly be an attempt. But also of those, if you approach them with silk gloves and hugs and kisses, some will be bitten, while a friendly remark does also convert editors sometimes (I do see the 'I did not know that, I'll take more care in the future' messages).

One of the issues is the IP or new editor, who is boosting with activity, and picks up the policies and guidelines really fast. Those editors should be made exempt from XLinkBot (whitelisted) as soon as possible, but they are difficult to detect in the plethora of edits. XLinkBot now alerts me of editors who have more than 9 messages from XLinkBot, either way, such editors need to be looked at (either they are genuine editors and should be whitelisted, or they are slow spammers and should be blocked for a bit of time to actually get the message). Maybe the note "Due to the nature of what the bot does, it will occasionally revert additions which may have been appropriate. As an RC patroller you are always required to make sure vandalism is obvious and uncontroversial, please do not revert someone who reverts or 'undoes' an XLinkBot edit based solely on the bot reverting the addition originally." on User:XLinkBot's userpage should be strenghtened and expanded, and be linked from the AIV-reports the bot produces (see IPuser-reportstring and user-reportstring in User:XLinkBot/Settings, there also the messages the bot leaves can be adapted in 'real time' (settings are loaded before every revert; feel free to adapt if necessary, please do check if the messages it actually leaves are formatted properly, they are concatenated in a bit complex way). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PR firm discussion

Hi,

I really appreciated your comments at User talk:Jimbo Wales. You said you've worked with a number of internal PR departments, but no PR firms, because none will admit it. I'd like to work with you, representing the first firm that admits it. I've been editing here seven years. My contribution history just shows a year and nine months because I had to change my username due an off-wiki situation, but my current account has over 5,000 edits and I've been involved in a couple leadership positions here. I believe in Wikipedia and its mission, to the point of telling clients "Sorry, we can't do that for you." Words/phrases like "premier," "first company to..." and "world-wide" do not appear in my writing. I see a potential for PR firms to have interests aligned with Wikipedia's mission and contribute high quality photos, articles, and other items that will improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm coming into an executive role with my new firm, and so I'm not subject to pressure from clients, because our company's reputation and effectiveness mean more to us than a little money from a client who just wants to promote him/herself. I've contacted ArbCom and received advice from them about how to proceed. Would you be willing to work with me on this? One of two things will happen: Either my firm and Wikipedia will find a mutually beneficial situation that could become the model for future collaboration, or it will become clear that it is impossible for PR firms to edit neutrally, and thus this experiment will be clear and incontravertable evidence of the same.

To be honest, if this experiment shows that it is impossible for PR firms to work with Wikipedia (or that it requires too much AfD time or editing time), I'd like to know that, because I'll be leading the effort to detect them and ban them, even though I work for one. Why? Because I want the playing field to be level for all the firms. Either we all have a way to work transparently, or else none of use are allowed.

Please let me know your thoughts. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 03:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply in progress., will take a day or so. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 10:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, got your email, but have been unusually busy. Will get back to you when I get a free moment. Thanks. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 08:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on a "high school" A7

As I am, of course, well aware following my RfA, CSD A7 explicitly exempts schools. Do you believe that it applies to "online" schools; specifically, Denver Online High School? I just removed the speedy deletion template, though I'm not really sure it qualifies for the exception. Looking at their webpage (just added as an EL to the article), it looks like they probably are real, and seem at least somewhat connected to the Denver public school system (though they also seem to charge fees, which confuses me). If the are operated by the State, then they probably even meet the general "All high schools are automatically notable" AfD exemption.

Obviously, the article needs clean-up, but I'd rather wait and see if it should even be an article before doing so. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a public school, though private high schools are just as notable as public ones. (I don't see a mention of fees, but most public schools do collect some sort of fee, and almost all charge tuition to students from outside their district.) The article however was totally unacceptable--mainly devoted to the names of the teachers. I removed that, but there is still much necessary rewriting. The real question for an online school at this or any level would be whether it is actually a separate school, or merely a program--we cannot necessarily go by the name it calls itself. If a program, it would best go in the article for the Denver Board of Education. My feeling is that it an actual separate school, but for something like this, a 3rd party reference will be really helpful. What it clearly is not is a mere tutoring center or support facility, which are almost never notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds very reasonable to me; I figured erring on the side of caution (removing the A7) was the better choice. Thanks for the trimming; I'll go take a look and see if I can find any sort of third party sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Thank you for letting it stay;) Well,i have already been criticized by some that i categorize cemeteries/burial grounds by religion/denomination but it really helps people who are interested in genealogy,as most of the time the religious affiliation is related to ethnicity (Baltic Germans=Lutheran,Russians=Orthodox etc.) Most of those cemeteries in the West are non-denominational/non-sectarian or multi-confessional today but that was not the case before the WWII Evangelidis (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of high schools

Hi -- I hope you have been well. I seem to recall, and have stated (or mis-stated, as the case may be) that I thought you may have said in the past that (verifiable) high schools are generally presumptively notable. But, in the event I've mis-spoken as to what you said, feel free to correct me. I made mention of my recollections at an AfD where I've not myself !voted (as of yet), here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesivta Tiferes Yisroel. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

such is the accepted compromise: high schools have articles, elementary schools in the absence of special notability get merged. But the compromise , like all informal and formal Wikipedia rules, has effect only as long as people here want it to have effect. I think recent decisions have upheld this in general, but there are always one or two people who challenge it. Such is probably the case here,There may be other factors, though, which I mention them at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re blp prod at Sulev Kannike

Hello DGG. Having read your statement above I'd like to point out that for one I see nothing wrong in prodding unsourced BLP articles and thus informing the author of the relevant WP policy – even though I could have searched for sources myself. That way the authors of such articles who are most often new to Wikipedia are told in a friendly but consequent way that there are certain standards to obey. By inserting missing sources myself and afterwards telling the author that such sourcing is actually required there is always the risk that new editors regard this as a free service and won't care too much about writing profound articles themselves. Moreover I like to think that I'm experienced enough as a WP editor to decide what to prod and what to accept without comment while patrolling new pages.

The real problem in this matter are automated scripts like Twinkle or Huggle that regularly keep missing non-standard sections like "Sources" or "External links" in BLP articles and slap a prod on it even though such articles may have valid sources. Regards, De728631 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

1 I absolutely see a good deal wrong in BLP Prodding unsourced articles when the person is specified as a public figure of sufficient importance that they will have easily findable sources. (This man is Latvia's ambassador to NATO, & there were dozens of excellent sources under his name as given, in English, in Google News Archive, which is as easy as it gets in finding sources ) This is especially true because some admin feel they have no obligation to check , either, before deletion. This reduces the human work on BLP prod to the dimensions of two particularly dumb bots, checking an article for the presence of formal elements without reading it, let alone understanding it. That's fine for placing a notice; it is not fine for deletion. WP:Deletion Policy applies to all deletion procedures: deletion is the last resort. The very best alternative to deletion for unsourced articles is to source them, and everybody working here has a obligation to help in doing this at al least a little as occasion offers when they see an article, and as resources and time permits. I don't consider everyone has anything like the obligation to do this the way I do: it is the main thing I do here, and an important one of the purposes for which I joined in the first place was to improve WP's referencing; I have access to a little more resources than some people; I can work at least minimally in a number of languages; I have greater skill in using even elementary resources than most and certainly have greater patience in using then; and I have the librarian's ability to make an accurate guess whether or not sources are likely. An appropriate minimal effort anyone can do is looking in Google News Archive or whatever similar search engine might be appropriate under the name given--it's even built into the automated notice.The way I work on the problem BLPs:

In some fields I no longer attempt to source some fields because they interest me less, and a very large percentage of the unsourced articles in those fields are in fact unsustainable even if sourced: popular entertainment, and sports. At the start of BLPO prod i tried to do them all, but I found myself without time to do anything else.

People writing an unsourced bio are often here to add the one article with no intention of doing anything else. They;'re not even likely to see the notice, and if the person is important, but not very important, it offers our one practical chance to get the article . If someone looks like they intend to continue, or their edit history indicates they intend to continue, they need instruction. Instruction is best administered in a friend but firm manner, not by threatening people. The automatic template does an altogether wrong job of it--though it makes an attempt to be informal and positive,it is still obviously an automated notice,with the expected negative connotations, and people have learned to ignore them beyond grasping the general import--I doubt anyone ever reads it through. If I think it will be of any actual value, I leave a message explaining that while I did it, they must do it properly in the future, telling them what is needed, in terms focussing on their particular article to show I have indeed read it personally, and making it clear that otherwise the articles run a considerable risk of deletion otherwise--it seems to communicate properly about half the time, which is pretty good for any sort of notice. For sever cases I have something stronger, for example:

Advice and Warning

As the reviewing administrator for these deletions, I need to offer you some advice. We are very glad to have articles about footballers from all countries, but they MUST have references. If they have appeared in games on the highest level national league---which is the basic requirement for them to have articles in Wikipedia-- there should always be references in the relevant national newspapers --usually easily findable in Google News and Google News Archive. There should also be a discussion or at least a listing of them in the web site for their team, and a listing in the general football web sites. These references need to be added, and they need to be added at the very beginning.

Sometimes I have been able to check articles like these before deletion and add at least one necessary reference, but I cannot promise always to have the time to do so--and football is not one of the subjects in which I have the most personal interest. It is not my responsibility to do this, nor the responsibility of anyone here but yourself. If you can write the article in the first place , you surely have the references in front of you when you are doing so, in order to get the names right and add the key statistics. That's when to do it! It is unfair to expect others to fill in what you can do so easily. I expect that you will start doing this, otherwise you may find that you are wasting your efforts, because the articles will get deleted. I have other responsibilities, and it is taking too much of my available time here to do your work for you,when there are so many other things that need fixing. In particular, I am not going to work further on the currently nominated articles. If you want them kept, work on them yourself.

Sometimes it doesn't work and they continue. Then I'll give a formal 4th level warning, which usually stops them. If not, I have blocked if they add so many that it amounts to disruption.

2. I am also concerned with developing new editors and removing the barriers to increased participation. One of the foundation priorities this year, at general request, is increasing the number of editors, Not discouraging them at the initial entry is critically important--the foundation's research surveys as well as individual complaints have shown that having an article rejected is extremely likely to prevent any further attempt, no matter what reassuring messages are sent. It is unreasonable to expect most new editors to get everything right initially. Therefore they must be taught, but taught in such way that everything practical is done to get their articles improved if improvement is possible—and in cases where it is not, that personal non-threatening actually helpful advice is given. The existing BLP Prod process , and all other deletion processes, is neither friendly nor helpful. In cases where it appears an article is possible, the new editor needs help in doing it properly, not just a warning to do it. In cases where it appears the article is hopeless, the editor needs an explanation why--with respect to that particular article, not in general terms--and guidance in finding more useful work to do here,

I find, as do most teachers, that a very good way to provide help is by example. In case of unsourced articles, that means adding at least one reference and explaining that more are needed., and where to find them. Nobody can be expected to understand initially either why we need sources, or what we consider acceptable sources, especially for biographies. Those of us with experience here need to share it. This is a community project.

The problem is primarily the people here. We can expect bots to be stupid. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks a lot for explaining your thoughts on the BLP process. It seems that we have two oppoosing views on the benefits of templates here. Let me note that in my opinion the current BLP prod template message is by no means a threatening "warning" like the standard vandalism messages ("please stop or you will face consequences"). Instead the BLP prod message is a neutral notification that has even a disclaimer included not to take anything personal but to improve the article in question and how to do it. It has also an icon which makes it more noticeable than a text-only message written by an editor. Therefore I see it absolutely fit to serve as a helpful means in improving the skills of new editors. Of course we can address anyone without any templated messages but as you put it I mostly "find myself without time to do anything else." My approach is to mark problematic new articles while patrolling the new pages list and then leave the rest of the work to the experts and/or the author. Of course not without giving advice to the new editors but mostly in form of the standard template message. And I have in fact gotten feedback to various template messages where people asked for further guidance. That's the usual point where I start "personal" communication. Speedy deletion messages on the other hand are something else. E.g. for insignigicant bands or recordings I tend to add an explanation to the template message in the line of "WP has certain rules on the importance of musicians and albums. Please see WP:Music" etc. And from my experience this is either understood and people do come up with sources (of any quality) or they choose to ignore every communication. De728631 (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In many respects we are both trying to do the same thing. & often use the same methods. We both do, yo often personalize the existing messages, which is a reasonable solution in many cases; I wish more people would do this, and what you say encourages me to try to personalize them more often--and to do it by shortening them--the longer the message, the less of it people read. Improved ways of communicating like sre important but are not what this discussion is basically about.

What I said I find myself without time to do, is to personally source all the new unsourced BLP articles--another order of magnitude entirely. The only good solution as we all agree is for people to source their own. Responsibility asides, they usually have the source in front of them at the time they write, for they usually add specific details that nobody really memorizes except when doing shameless autobio. Nobody else can match this later--what would take anyone else time to find, they have immediately. And even if they have only an inadequate source, it's at least a good starting point. Where I differ from you is in two areas fo emphasis:

First, we need not to reject articles on really important people, even if unsourced, but to source them. I usually patrol 24 to 48 hours before the ending time. The ed. has had 8 or 9 days, and if by that time they haven't done it I decide whether it's worth trying--which depends upon the stated importance. So you might have a point in giving them the window first--but this would only be so if all admins actually checked and sourced where important or necessary at the end; however, of the ones who patrol BLP prod, most do not--they work mechanically. using justifications such as yours. There's a level of importance where sI do not take the chance of that happening--where if I find an article on someone important enough at any point, I add at least a single decent source to keep the article alive. I do not want to miss such people: they're too important to our users. I yesterday added an article on an exceptionally distinguished member of the National Academy of Sciences who had received a major appointment, but nobody had written an article about. This does not surprise me any longer, but right after that I saw an article on BLP Prod about another member of the NAS reach the 8th day.

The 'second point is even more important--more critical than having or not having any article, is retaining a contributor. More basic even than educating them, is to keep them around long enough to be educated. Surveys have shown that most people who get a negative notice never return again, and I think it would almost as bad if we had the politest possible negative notices. This is spiraling us downhill into disaster--at least the disaster of stagnation, though we should have enough people to avoid total extinction. True, it's necessary to eliminate junk--but it is so much easier to remove junk than to retain a contributor. I've deleted 12,000 articles so far in 4 years as an admin, and saved only about 10% of that, while all that time I've been able to rescue at most 100 ,(about 1% of that number) of contributors, contributors whom other editors and admins have discouraged. I work in outreach also, but my chapter is happy when we can reach the goal of one new active contributor per meeting. And only a few percent of those who take classes in the Ambassador program continue, And that's with most teachers having their class write offline in order to avoid the negativity. Such is not a method of communal writing, and does not teach the wiki way way working, where the goal of communal writing is everyone who sees an article doing something to improve it, not just to tell someone else to improve it.

My priority is people: first the people already here, because being here we must cooperate, and second the newcomers, and only then articles and article content.I think for too many people its the other way round, that they think tolerating borderline articles to keep the contributors so they'll stay with us and write better articles to be improper. I must live with them here, because they are unfortunately a majority, no matter how destructive i think them. The hope is that new people will be increasing aware of this and dilute those. we won't be able to eliminate.

I accept there are more than one valid way to make an encyclopedia , and to look at articles. No one has to agree with my way, & I think none the less of them. But I do not accept working in a way hat discourages newcomers. for the sake of quality, which will eave us a nice clean fossil, and those who would do that I cannot agree with and I will try as hard as hard as i effectively can to diminish their influence. DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Any thoughts on the notability of Roy Eriksen? Loads of hits in google books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr B, I know you've been around here long enough to know not to use WP:GHITS as an argument in a deletion discussion, and I'm sure you know PROF, ANYBIO, and GNG like the back of your hand. Also, you are more than capable of clicking a link, doing a news search, scholar search, etc., so why on earth wouldn't you actually offer an opinion with real supporting evidence? Being the author of books in itself doesn't demonstrate notability. ^Bongo_matic 00:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised, Bongo, that any editor who understood G Scholar would use the low number of hits there as an argument for deletion of anything in the humanities. I have almost never encountered a full professor in a major research university who was not found notable here. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as an argument for deletion, but (as I intended to imply in my ~~nomination~~comment) a (weak) lack of argument for keeping. Indeed, the notability guidelines work this way—something affirmative fact is required to meet them (even the intrinsic ones—in which case it's simply a demonstration of inclusion within a class.

The career of the individual in question appears to have received little note in sources that are conveniently available to me and I haven't seen anyone here argue that other sources have identified more. Your opinion at the AfD was just that--an opinion, possibly—no, probably—with compelling reasoning based on guidelines, with consideration of specific accomplishments or publications behind. But such reasoning was not offered along with the opinion, so I'm not sure if it's just general feeling that someone who's been in the trenches for 20-odd years is notable, or if Agder is a "highly prestigious" award or if Early Modern Culture Online is a "major well-established academic journal" in the subject area, or what other considerations may be determinative. ^Bongo_matic 15:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the determining factors in most non-ovious AfD discussions in any subject are opinions. The key words we use "substantial" "authority" " reliable" are all non-quatitative. Myself, I'd certainly be in favor of a more quantitative categorical approach--not in order to reach fairer results, but to avoid discussions over topics which could go either way. One of the traditional values of a reference source is consistency, both consistent level of writing and consistent coverage, and Wikipedia notoriously has neither. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions are supposed to informed by verifiable facts (e.g., "editor of X") used in conjunction with interpretations of guidelines ("X is a major well-established journal"). Of course, whether X is a major well-established journal, or whether an individual's (verifiable) contributions to a field if inquiry have had a "significant impact" are opinions. Your own thought process would be useful to me, anyway, and I'm sure to anyone else who stops by the AfD. ^Bongo_matic 16:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinmaya.328

Thanks for your comments on User talk:Chinmaya.328 (though I'm not certain the editor even knows of the existence of talk pages). The user's other article, Themis Medicare, reminded me exactly of your recent comments on Wales's talk page about identifying when a PR firm has written something...a list of milestones, reference to the company being first at numerous things, etc. As a side note, I don't know (and maybe you don't want to make public) how your conversations with NoRaft went, but I support the idea of working with paid editors, not just blanket forbidding them (since we can't even do that successfully anyway). I honestly don't get why Jimbo thinks that such involvement is now and has always been forbidden and everyone knows that and no one disagrees. I totally accept that he opposes it, and even accept the idea that he/WMF can make a fiat rule against it, just not his idea that there is an obvious and overwhelming consensus that agrees with him. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that one--in fact, I would have listed it for deletion except that I saw you had worked on it. It's large enough that it might be notable, but whether I feel like doing the work for an article like that depends upon the factors of how important the company is & my opinion of the editor's good faith. I've had no conversations with NoRaft. I sent him an email, suggesting he privately & confidentially tell me who he is, & what articles he had written, but had no response. I will not do something potentially problematic with someone who hides his identity from me, any more than I go down dark alleys with masked strangers. I can see his problem, though--he's promised his clients confidentiality, and by our own rules I can't insist he tell me. Therefore, I shall do as always: any article he or anyone known or unknown asks me to look at on-wiki, I will look at and give my opinion and advice, on-wiki. I'll talk with even masked strangers in bright lit public places. I do not think Jimbo's ruling has literal consensus, but is rather one of the pious statements that nobody will openly challenge, but nobody will actually follow. It is even contradicted by his own statement of our basic policy, that anyone can edit. Anonymity has its benefits, but also its problems, and can lead to such paradoxes. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of books

I would be glad of your advice on assessing notability of books. New user Demossoft (talk · contribs) has input a string of articles about books by a Lebanese author, Lina Murr Nehmé:

1453, Mahomet II impose le Schisme Orthodoxe (Worldcat shows it in 18 + 12 + 10 = 40 libraries)
Baalbek, Monument Phenicien (5 libraries)
La Douloureuse Passion de Jésus-Christ (5 libraries) (she provided historical notes)
Prophéties de la Bible pour Le Liban Moderne (Arabic version in 1 library)
Le Liban assassiné, lettre ouverte à Monsieur Sarkozy (not in Worldcat)
Les otages libanais dans les prisons syriennes, jusqu'à quand? (not in Worldcat)

I have told him about WP:BK and about COI; others have PRODded two of the books, and Demossoft removed the PRODs with (not unreasonable) requests for more time.

The suspicion of COI and promotion makes me want to look hard at notability. Figures to the right are the number of libraries shown in Worldcat as holding the book. On that basis, the first passes the "dozen libraries" threshold in WP:BK#Criteria, but the rest do not. Depending on whether more references are produced, I am considering an AfD for all the books except the first. My questions are:

Is the Worldcat library count the right measure to use against the WP:BK threshold?
Any other ways to assess them, bearing in mind that they are in French?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, she is perhaps notable as an author, since two of her books are in many but not all of the major French university libraries, so an article on her and a merge seems reasonable. There's even an English language source, [2]. I agree with you the writing articles for even the really minor works indicates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. Normally people even with COI either write the author article first, or an article on one of the books, usually the most recent. As for library holdings, Worldcat gives the same as the French university Union Catalog, sudoc, [3]; I am not aware of any union catalog for French public libraries, and these are in any case, not the sort of books one would expect to find there, I often look for an additional indication of the importance of French academic books from German academic library holdings, which are more likely to do well than the US. I use the superlative German-based international union catalog, Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog KVK , which has an English interface, [4]. In this instance, almost none of her books are present there. I think however a thorough search would probably find reviews of her books--I think a thorough search would find reviews of essentially all academic books from major publishers, and if we took BOOKS literally every notable author would have some or all of their books separately notable, as would many non-notable authors. I just thought of a way to summarize my view of that guideline: books, as well as sports and popular entertainment, are among the things over-covered by the press, especially the coverage of academic books by academic journals, and so the GNG for these subjects is way too broad. To the extent Wikipedia:Notability (books) incorporates it as criterion 1, it is way too broad. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall try to explain things to the author. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See a review of her Mahomet book on a website, including a short interview with the author. This makes the thesis of the book look interesting although possibly fringe. The book is translated into both English and Arabic, which suggests there is a publisher who thinks the book will find readers. Surely there are reviews by historians if anybody knows how to find them. Not sure if this onefineart.com web site is a reliable source for anything but it could be an external link. Combining these separate articles on the books into one article on the author is probably best until the additional sources are found. The publisher of the Mahomet book, Francois-Xavier de Guibert, looks to be a mainstream French publisher. they are described as a Christian publisher in their small article on the French Wikipedia: fr:Éditions François-Xavier de Guibert. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they're a mainstream publisher. As I cannot source by myself everything submitted to Wikipedia I tend to work on sourcing the ones I think most notable/important/encyclodia-worthy, or articles where interesting questions are raised in the AfD. And I regret to say I no longer have remote access to most of the humanities databases, so I need to be even more selective. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you did have access, what humanities database would you check? EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

=

A barnstar for you

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thanks for your efforts to preserve articles about notable topics. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion tag removals

Hi DGG... perhaps I'm being overly sensitive but:

"I and other admins" must be untrue since that suggests three or more removals, when I only placed two speedy deletion tags.
I have read WP:CSD on several occasions and have re-read it now. While it mentions the criteria for speedy deletion, it doesn't mention the criteria for tagging something as SD. There is a short outline of what to tag as such on WP:NPP but does not mention any specific procedures. In particular, it does not state that it is required "that when you do place a speedy or other deletion tag, you indicate this in the article summary." However, I will do so in the future.
"president of a major company" - there is no article for that company on WP and I was also unable to find any reference to it via a major search engine.

On the other hand, I accept that being head of a major bureau of a major newspaper is clearly indication of importance and I was hasty in marking that article for speedy deletion.

New page patrolling is not the most interesting part of editing on WP - although occasionally I learn something interesting from new articles - but it is absolutely necessary. The tone of your note is a little abrasive, as though I'm trying to damage your website. Perhaps a little encouragement for people doing thankless tasks might not go amiss.

Incidentally, I'm never sure whether to respond to a comment on my talk page directly after the comment or on the commenter's own talk. Which is best?

FunkyCanute (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD, section 1, 2nd paragraph.

"Immediately following each criterion below is a list of templates used to mark pages or media file for speedy deletion under the criterion being used. In order to alert administrators of the nomination, place the relevant speedy deletion template at the top of the page or media file you are nominating (within <noinclude>…</noinclude> if nominating a Template: page). Please be sure to supply an edit summary that mentions that the page is being nominated for speedy deletion. All of the speedy deletion templates are named as "db-X" with "db" standing for "delete because". A list of the "db-X" templates can be found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates."

I added the boldface., Perhaps we should make it more prominent in the text, and say it on Deletion Policy elsewhere. I understand "be sure to" as meaning "it is required to". That wording can if necessary be clarified. And yes, it's a problem all over Wikipedia finding procedures and policies because they are spread out in multiple places.

I don't own speedy. No one admin does most of it. Discussions about it go on WT:Speedy, where you will see the general trend is towards making the requirements narrower, with which I heartily agree. An article wrongly deleted at a speedy can in principle be restored, but it almost always costs us both the article and the editor. Someone else may eventually write the article, but an editor who has a bad experience here will discourage others from even starting. An article not immediately deleted by speedy, will be deleted or fixed by prod or AfD, and if kept by these processes by chance or error, will have attracted enough visibility that someone will get back to it.

NPP is interesting, but difficult. The job of NPP is not just to remove junk, but to remove hopeless junk, nominate the dubious for prod or AfD, tag everything that needs fixing later, and explain clearly and personally to new editors who show any signs of becoming useful what they ought to be doing--not just posting the standard messages, which are over-detailed and non-specific. How quick one can go depends on what one works on. I can do one a minute if it's stuff that I don't have to write personalized messages for or carefully check contribution histories, or confirm in google, but anything else takes longer. I do a little sometimes at the end of the day to keep in touch with the incoming stream, and I've learned to do only a few at a time because otherwise the amount of trash inclines me to start deleting too much. I normally tag, not immediately delete, & I think it should be the rule for admins, but since it still isn't I do sometimes just remove. But normally I find problems in patrolling by catching the incorrect deletion tags. I became an admin quite specifically to do this, so I could check on what had been deleted also, as well as dispose of somethings quickly.

I think my message was terse, but neither rude nor condescending. Part of the terseness was due to just the effect I mentioned above in patrolling--I had previously dealt with a person doing considerably more errors, and it affected the way I was thinking. And I was influenced by the nuisance of having to check everything you edited to see the ones that were deletion tags, because of the lack of edit summaries. Anyone else who sees this is welcome to check & correct me on this.

as for the articles, I probably should have said, head of a possibly major company, going by reported size. "possibly" is enough to defeat speedy. And true, I should have said me and another admin. Usually when I comment it's with >2, so I just routinely typed it. It's not a prebuilt message, but my brain can work a little too much on internal automatic pilot without outside devices to accentuate it.

I probably should routinely say to answer on my talk page. Like many who have been here a while, my watchlist is too long to be useful. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response. Appreciate the clarifications. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've seen you reference this essay

WP:TALKINGSOFASTNOBODYCANHEARYOU. Is my memory that faulty? I can't find it, and it's possible the syntax isn't precise. Did you use this a sort of irony? I seem to remember you used the link to represent bullying behaviors. I'm seeing one such user who seems to be wanting to turn the entire AfD process on its head by using such a technique. BusterD (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have sometimes used pseudo-links like these as a statement for their own sake, without writing an actual essay. I remember saying something like this, but I can't find it. I think this one was TALKINGSOMUCH... -- but I can't find it either. As for the problem, I've commented pretty extensively at AN/I: [5], and will comment at the RfC also, But please don't confuse the reasonable message, with which I am in agreement -- that Deletion Policy is overbalanced towards deletion, and one step towards rebalancing it would be to require some version of WP:BEFORE -- with the unreasonable way it is being over-expressed. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David. I was a debater in school before "talking so fast" became the current style. I feel anything which games the system deserves appropriate response in order to keep the system sound. I appreciate your valid concern about deletion procedures being over-weighted toward one outcome. Thanks for your valuable comments in those forums. Be well. BusterD (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I had forgotten that context. And so was I,in college--a very valuable experience, especially in facilitating the sort of intercampus experiences only the athletic teams otherwise gave occasion for. But the stimulus is interesting: if I take a turn at NPP, the amount of junk turns me for a while into a deletionist before I catch myself and stop being so unfriendly to all the newcomers. If I take a look at AfD, the number of unwarranted nominations makes me want to give a similarly snappy and unjust response to all of them, with the less than rational thought that if I argue against all of them, maybe there's a chance the good ones will make it. Several good inclusionists have run into trouble here falling into such temptation. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autobio

We have an AFD of Adam Taubitz, started as an autobio. Normally I'd have speedy tagged it but actually there appears to evidence he meets requirements. Your thoughts please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't matter who started it, since any person with a chair in the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra is notable, and he's head of the section. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Youtube personalities

Hey, am back with query once again, are youtube personalities notable enough to get on WP ? Please help me out over here GloZell_Green and check this message. Thanks. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it depends , as always, on references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Almost always all material about them is on the internet in the form of blogs of some sort; the question is then what sort of blogs count as reliable for the purposes of notability. In the past, Wikipedia has been notably restrictive in this, but as more and more other responsible sources appear in this format, things are changing. There's a subsidiary question in each particular case of whether the coverage in the references is substantial, but that's essentially the same question as with references in any media, and amounts to a question of judgement. Such judgements can depend not on the merits but on what one wishes to prove, since often each position can be justified. The prevailing attitude, which to some measure I share, is extreme skepticism. I summarize it by saying that for someone to be notable, they have to have actually done something notable -- in the ordinary meaning of the word.

but this case is simple with respect to notability: the deleted article on Green had no third party sources whatsoever. I doubt anyone who understands Wikipedia would support it at an AfD unless better sources could be found. However, it was deleted via A7, and the criterion for A7 is not notability, nor is it whether the article would be accepted into Wikipedia, but some reasonable indication or claim of importance. The question is whether the claims there are such. I consider them borderline. The person certainly thinks what they've done is important. I do not, but I can recognize that a person might think so in good faith. Myself, I might or might not have A7'd. Given that I know I have a prejudice against such careers, I might have passed on it & let some other admin decide. In any case, I have a standard practice for a questioned A7 speedy like this: first I give the fairest advice I can, which in this case is that without real sources it will surely be rejected in its present form, so it would be best to submit it again once there are sources; and then, if the person still wants me to, I undelete and send it to AfD (they rarely do, if I give the advice clearly enough). It's easier than arguing. If I was right, it'll be deleted, and there will be grounds for a G4 in case of the almost inevitable re-creation. (The only problem is that sometimes it might not be a good faith article, in which case the subject deserves to be protected against the negative comments at AfD. That's not the case here--they want the publicity. The previous speedy of a much sketchier version was deleted on A7 and G11, something I also do a good deal. I might have done that here.)

The case is not helped , of course, by the comparison that's made to Jenna Marbles, which has several good third party sources, and would almost certainly pass AfD. When someone says , but X has an article, there are three possibilities. Most commonly, X is famous, and then almost always the proposed subject is hopelessly non-notable & the claim is absurd—naïve but well-meaning editors argue this a lot, often for self-published authors. Also common, is that X is in fact borderline notable at best, and quite possibly should be deleted also—spammers often use this argument & there's an obvious course to follow, which usually stops their questioning, though it will hardly satisfy them. But, rarely, it is a reasonable protest: either we are generally inconsistent in the area involved, in which case it should go to AfD, to take its chances in the coin toss, or there actually was an error in evaluating X. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a nice thing you did

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For taking the time and trouble to explain to Frwrldpce why his articles were deleted. Many reviewing admins would just have hit the delete button and been done with it, but you went the extra mile. Yunshui (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For finding a way to clearly and concisely explain what was to some invisible and to others so obvious that they couldn't find the words on Wikipedia_talk:Civility. causa sui (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Biology journal

Your edit of August 14 creates a self link within the Royal Society page. I don't recall how this is normally addressed -- maybe unlink the name until a free-standing article is justified? Technically, the journal has begun publication. Its first and only article appeared in September: Glover D, Holt C, Johnson L, Parham P. 2011 Introducing Open Biology. Open Biol 1: 110001. DOI link. More info at Talk:Open Biology#First article has appeared. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't exactly an article, just an editorial statement of purpose. The simplest thing to do is to leave it alone a little longer. This was a compromise: my own opinion remains that a journal from the RS is notable the day it's announced--is notable even if it ends up not being published, I'll check again to see if there are some 3rd party refs yet, to satisfy those who think they are essential. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

uw templates

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and I with our combined experience could go a long way to help develop this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing

Hi! If you still have suggestions for any of the 9 listed as "in-progress" at WP:UWTEST, please drop a note on the talk page for that template. We're going to start the new test now and would rather not change the templates in the middle, but it's easy to do a new test or simply incorporate changes afterward, since all we need is a week or so of data. I'm interested to see what you'd like to do, because my feeling is "the shorter the better" on these warnings. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto Wikipedia's Canada Education Program Help

Hello Mr. Goodman, My name is Matthew and I am a student in the Master's of Information program at the University of Toronto in the Knowledge and Information in Society course. I found your profile on the online ambassador page which our instructor directed us to. We had to choose an article and contribute an edit to it. I chose information infrastructure and added some sections to the article. I would be grateful, if you could take a look at it and offer some suggestions, because I am new to Wikipedia.

Thank you, Matthew In4matt (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will get there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I'm looking forward to reading your suggestions, In4matt (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking the article. I'm going to incorporate your suggestions into the article. In4matt (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the deletion of Lite Airways?

Though it is a planned airline, it will be launched soon. Hence, it's notability as an article.

bedcrawl 16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

once it does start operating , it is likely to be important; at that point, if you have substantial sources for it -- not a mere routine statement about transfer of ownership--then you can write an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Federman article

Hi DGG, thanks so much for your advice on the Ben Federman article. I always appreciate feedback that helps me improve my editing. If you don't mind, I had a few questions.

Question about streamlining

Per your advice, I tried to cut any facts that seemed both off topic and positive. I also tried to cut quotes so it wouldn't seem like it was giving undue weight to the positive. But I'll admit, I'm not so great at streamlining intuitively, which makes your advice about the quotes doubly helpful. My method of contributing usually involves binge research and going crazy with citations. Sometimes I feel I verge on adding too much of what I've discovered, and then get too attached to a first draft to really know what to cut out.

I'm sure you're busy and so I hate to ask, but I could I lure you into returning to the page to remove any information that you feel is extraneous? It would give me a chance to analyze your instinct for inclusion, and hopefully help me learn something I can apply to my future contributions.

Basically when writing a page for an entrepreneur type, I'm not sure where to draw the line on company details. Part of my brain argues that it helps the reader understand why the person is notable, while the other part of my brain argues it seems only tangentially related. For a specific example, I'm not sure if the quote in the Octagon commerce section that says "Instead of using third-party advertising on his sites...rely solely on viral publicity" is too off topic for a biography or not.)

Request for review

After your tags I tried to improve the page as best I could, and am proud to say I think it meets all the Wikipedia guidelines at least I'm aware of (proper third-party citations, neutral and original wording, all standard sections, infobox, proper lead, etc.)

However, I don't feel comfortable removing the tags myself because they are largely a critique of my contributions. Do you mind if I ask; could you be the page's angel of sorts and review the entry again? I was hoping you could either find it satisfactory and remove the tags, could make the changes you think will bring it up to par, or could let me know what else you think needs to be done. It's pretty complete already, so I doubt it would take long.

At some point, my goal on Wikipedia is to have an article nominated to "good status," so I tried to add the page with that in mind. Having an administrator look it over and actually give it a critical, constructive edit would make me so very happy.

Head ups, I suppose I do have a bias on this topic; I use Federman's website regularly, and I thought he seemed like a neat guy when I was doing research (being a tepid fan counts as a sort of bias, right?). But my goal is honestly to have it 100% neutral, so anything I can do to get it there, I'll do in a heartbeat.

Thanks! Richardo42 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you could do to make it look less promotional, is to remove most of the "Friedman" and replace it with "he" or "his"

Another thing, is to look at each sentence and see if there are any words you can eliminate without affecting the meaning. : e.g. replace "Federman is known for frequently interacting with customers via ..." with "He interacts with customers on ..." or, at age 18" with "at 18"

A more general problem is the discussion of what he only plans to do. I read such statements as promotional.

Since he's a businessman, perhaps a different picture would be appropriate: the picture should relate to his primary activity, which is not rowing a boat.

And if you're looking for a GA, you might have more success with his brother Eliyahu Federman, who has a public career. His picture is, btw, an example of what I mean by an appropriate picture: informal, but showing him doing what he's known for. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After you've done these, I'll take another look. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I went ahead and tried to incorporate what you said. I think it did tone it down a lot. I figure I'll hold off on a picture until I can find one more appropriate. I'll probably consider the brother as my next pet project, his activism seems interesting.

Ben Federman (Revision history / previous edit) Richardo42 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, hope you had a good weekend. Sorry to prod, but by chance do you have a minute to look over the new Federman update? Richardo42 (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get there today. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needed some cutting. If you don't see the purpose of my cuts, ask me. I may do some more--it still sounds too much like an inspirational biography. But, looking at it, you might as well put back the picture. I give no guarantee the article will stay in Wikipedia, of course; I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but anyone else can & I won't be the one who decides. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, understood. I looked through the changes and see why you did each one; I agree with them. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand. While I'm not quite sure how to scrub out the facts to seem less inspirational, I guess if I find some well-sourced dirt on him I'll add a controversy section or something. I'll keep my eyes open. At some point I'd still like to try this one for GA, so I hope you don't mind if I removed the maintenance tags. Now that you've given it your knowing eye, I feel pretty confident it's squeaky awesome :D Richardo42 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(also, I hope you don't mind if I archive this conversation on my talk page as well - but I'll consider this the place for conversation) 01:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

it's not a question of adding negative information, but of general tone. The one specific sentence I have remaining doubts about is the Facebook page; this is pretty standard for many businesses. But it's ok to remove the tags. Now, I have no actual authority here on smatters of content beyond that of any other editor, and if anyone is unhappy with the result, they can add the tags back--if they do, please don't remove them unilaterally. They can also make what changes they see fit, and if they do , consider whether they might have merit. It's hard to judge one's own work, and that also applies to my ability to judge the adequacy of my editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding confrontation on two articles.

I have a favor to ask, if you can, please look at two articles, Roc Nation singles discography and Roc Nation albums discography. I have several concerns about the articles, but in particular, the article creator has created text boxes with colors matching the logo of the company, and when I have attempted to discuss this with the individual, it is easy to see they are rapidly becoming confrontational (talk pages). Dealing with controntational people is not something I am good at. The editor in question, User:MarkMysoe has only been here a month (although he has been quite busy) so may not be as familiar with MOS issues. It's obvious the guy wants to contribute and most of his work is quite good (refs, etc), but it would be more helpful if he did so in a consistent way. Again, I'm aware that I can appear confrontational at times, so this would best be handled by someone like yourself with a more balanced way of expressing themselves. If you can, please do. If you would rather not, I understand. Just let me know and I will ask another admin. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if I need to re-visit, let me know. I consider it pure promotionalism, which we do not tolerate. DGG ( talk ) 12:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will do. I appreciate you taking the time. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up issue - He has come around on the articles (and I believe in acting in good faith), and has done some of the work (the info box is still red and black), but now he believes that the template can still be in the black and red because other templates also use bold colors. (I changed, he reverted, I've left it alone.) I'm not an expert on WP:ACCESS or promotional colors, etc. Your input on the input boxes and the template would be helpful. WP:ACCESS is the primary policy issue, but I agree with you that it appears to be promotional when you do that, for a team or a company. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we standardize template colors. I will revert. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barbette Spaeth

I wonder if Barbette Spaeth, associate professor of classics at William and Mary College, is notable enough for inclusion per WP:PROF. I have created a user sandbox space for a potential article. Her name links to dozens of WP articles. Her treatise on Ceres has been cited copiously. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

borderline: it's her only book, and was based on her doctoral thesis. , However, she does seem a specialist on that particular subject. There are probably multiple reviews of her book, which would help. If any of them specifically called her an expert it would surely help. . DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, exactly the input I needed. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wojciech Nawrocki

FYI, since you were involved in removing the prod on it in the recent past. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The making of stubs should be actively encouraged, The principles are building the web, and that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia --even incomplete information is useful, as long as it is verifiable. (I would not go so far as to say that is must be actually required, since we are all volunteers. I myself make them when occasion offers, though it is not what choose to primarily do--though I sometimes think I should be doing otherwise, and making as many as possible on people whom I know to be notable where I have the sources., such as the many thousands of members of national academies who do not yet have articles. If I did not have to patrol speedy and prod to rescue new editors from unwarranted deletions of fixable articles, I would do this.)

I do not consider it needs discussion. (though I nonetheless did join the discussion) Anyone opposed to it does not believe in the principle of a comprehensive encyclopedia & we are therefore not working on the same project. I might want to persuade them to work on Wikipedia rather than on their own concept of what we should instead be doing, but I know it to be hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up for deletion, again.

Social impact of thong underwear is up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social impact of thong underwear) again. Will you take a look? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without specific reference to anyone, there can be discomfort with discussion of sexual topics in a formal setting, even by those who are perfectly comfortable with such material in other settings. It;s an understandable attitude, but not appropriate here. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barica Marentič Požarnik

She is a retired (emer.?) Slovenian professor, whom I think passes WP:PROFESSOR, but not editors agree with this new article. After having you wikislap me a couple of times over the years at AFD for professors (deservedly, I might add), I've learned a little about the criteria. Her publications have been cited over 100 times, (106 hits for her name in quotes at scholar.google.com but it isn't in English, and even if it was, I'm not an academic so it is a bit over my head. This looks right up your alley. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately, the page is an exact copy of her English cv at http://baricamarentic.wordpress.com/cv/english/ , so I had to delete it as a copyvio. I willl make some suggestions for what would be needed to rewrite it at User talk:Qrof. The books are more likely to prove notability than the articles. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch. I figured since she had been cited so many times, and had such a long career, there had to be some notability there. I didn't think to check for copy vio, guess I learned something today. Thanks for following up. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anything written in a format that might be a CV is worth checking for copyvio, because most of the time it is, and for academics, they are almost always on line. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted File Request

Dear DGG,

Thank you for your advice regarding the deletion of my submission, "Mathew D. McCubbins." I would like to request that the deletion be returned to my personal userspace so that I may revise and improve it along the guidelines you have suggested.

Andrea.colleen.francis (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)andrea.colleen.francis[reply]

Dear DGG,

I have resubmitted the revised article entitled "Mathew D. McCubbins" for your review with guidelines given. Thank you for the advice. Andrea.colleen.francis (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Andrea.colleen.francis[reply]

Deletion Spammer

There is a guy who keeps marking the page i made about a movie editor as not an important person for deletion. In the source it links to the IMDB page for the person. Any idea how to go about fighting this? Alan McCurdy is the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesX63 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discuss it at the .AfD DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at User talk:DGG/Archive 58 Nov. 2011.
Message added 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Ridgeby Greathouse

Hey! I saw you declined the G12 at this article. I'm confused about the false positive and don't want to make the mistake again. I checked around for any kind of licensing before nominating but don't see anything besides, "Copyright of original material remains with greathousecousins.com and the contributors." found here. Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually very simple: this article is based on the text of an article published by Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, which was issued between 1887 and 1901. Some family members can come along later and put the information on a family website, and that is fine. They can copyright their copyrighted family website, but that copyright does not apply to material originally published in the United States before 1923. DGG, let us know if I've got anything wrong here. Hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

right. They copied their material from the 19th century Appleton's American Biography (and in fact attributed it at the bottom of their page). Our article was also copied from Appleton's, and says it was, and is in the characteristic style of that old fashioned and not very reliable work. So in a sense they were telling the truth: they own the copyright for whatever material on their page is original. But this part isn't. It's absolutely routine for people to place a general copyright notice in such cases, or even in cases where they add nothing original of their own at all. there is, oddly, no penalty for even deliberately claiming copyright in what is in the public domain in the hope that someone will think they need to pay you for it. In a slightly different situation, museums do that all the time when the post illustrations on the web, even when they have no copyright in the underlying work, and, in US law at least, no copyright in the reproduction (because faithful reproductions of flat art are not subject to US copyright).

What we ought to be doing is completely rewriting all the old article content taken from all the pre-1923 PD sources--the old Brittanica and Catholic Ency and Jewish Ency the worst; the old DNB is a little better, depending on when the article was written. The tone is generally unsuitable and the facts and interpretation often unreliable. So I freely say, though I've almost never taken a hand in it myself.

In this case, the two attribution statements gave it away, for they were quite frank about it. I would probably have deleted it had I not noticed them, without investigation. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have enough information to judge your assessment of the reliability of those old 19th and early 20th century encyclopedias, but since I know that you are a librarian, I will defer to your expertise. That being said, I think that we should keep articles referenced only to those sources, because there is a clear potential to expand and improve these articles. I spent some time a year or so ago working on an article about a real 19th century "character", Harry Yount. It took a lot of in-depth online searches, refining my search terms and developing techniques to separate the wheat from the chaff. But I was able to uncover lots of reliable source material in a week or two of effort. I think the same can be said of an article like this one. An editor could take this on as a personal project, as I did with Mr. Yount, and a much better article could result. If we delete the article, the chances for that outcome are greatly reduced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

of course we should keep them--but we should rewrite them with modern sources added--just as you did. That one of these encyclopedias has an article is considered not just as an indication, but a definitive proof of notability , because we include everything in other general encyclopedias. It's just that they is essentially no subject whatsoever where additional knowledge, and very often more accurate knowledge, is not available--just as you found in the one you worked on. You're doing what we should all of us be doing. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. I'll try to be sharper about catching such attributions in the future. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Try This Again

Dear [User:DGG| DGG]],

Thanks for being cool. I thought that a bunch of reference to the Hypnos label, easily one of the top five "ambient music" labels... Hearts of Space, maybe 1-2 more... would be reference enough. That's OK. I'll just copy over refs from the Hypnos page, and more. It's an important indie label, and M. Griffin created it, still runs it, and is the most-released artist on it (which makes sense, since it's his label, after all.)

So I will _improve_ the article. That's reasonable. And I want to do anyway. Can I just have a couple of days respite to get it done? I have a life, and a couple of jobs... make it a couple weeks? Not much in the scheme of things. Unlike Wikipedians, I don't have much time to sit around and get all anal about things, y'know? No offense intended. If it gets deleted, whatever. I can get paid for work; Wikipedia doesn't pay me. So what-ever. — WinkJunior (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some additional help on your user talk page. It is a little confusing to leave the same message in multiple places. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to information sources

This seems a bit strange to me. The one reference that I can access does not even mention the term "Guide to information sources". Perhaps it should be moved or redirected to a more suitable article? --Crusio (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's an appropriate article; I'm not sure there is a really standard term. The one I used in teaching was guides to the literature. The most common beginning words of the titles of such books is however, A guide to information sources in (subject), In any case, it can be much expanded, and I will do so: I know of over a hundred, many in multiple editions. Perhaps it should be List of guides to information sources, because dozens of them are notable individually--there will be substantial reviews for most of them; or perhaps not, because there are some that should be included but may not be, and, more important, I don't immediately want to write all the articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COINAPO

Wanna take a look at the EU project article yourself? I think Crusio is pretty tired of dealing with that stuff. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still following it. The article creator requested some more time to improve the article. He has now written a nice well-sourced piece of text on nanoscience, which unfortunately has nothing directly to do with the "action" (I don't want to call this a project, because COST programs don't provide funding to conduct experiments, only funding for short reciprocal visits and to organize short meetings or summer schools). Once the editor tells me that it is finished, I intend to have another look and then proceed with AfD if I think notability has not been shown (which, frankly, I expect to happen, given the current progress). But it is true that I am tiring of it and I have a lot of meetings/travel coming up, so I may not be able to devote much time to this in the near future. --Crusio (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then. User:Materialscientist suggested on his talk page that the nanotubes part (pictures etc.) could be merged to another, more closely related article. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So the steps would be first moving that part, and then deciding if there were anything left. What would be left essentially would be the list of meetings. I've no general objection to articles on series of meetings, if they are substantial meetings that lead to a series of specific publications. But how many pf these groups are there? DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Nikolai Keith

Dear sir, I am utterly confused by your reasoning to remove the article on Harvey Nikolai Keith, all the more that there are links even on wikipedia to his work. The biography om IMDB was written by Eric Mittleman -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0594167/ an industry veteran who has an extensive profile and is certainly credible. Wether I know him or don't know him, should make absolutely no difference to the validity of the article.

the term hoax is improper and invalid. Harvey Keith has a profile on IMDB and his bio confirms the information, moreover I linked to the publisher which has information on his books. I would also note thatFfr people's whose career began long before the internet age, to expects a slew of links on the internet is impossible. I spent considerable time writing this first article, as Harvey deserves a profile here- his movie Mondo New York has it's own page, yet he doesn't. very logical you'll agree.

It would have been nice to receive a head's up before erasing what was hours worth of work for me. AnatoliusTrigger (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have reinserted the article. I have sent it to our articles for deletion process, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey Nikolai Keith where you will be welcome to comment, and some other administrator will judge. I probably should not have simply said hoax, for which I apologize, but the fact is, I could verify very little of what was in the IMdB biography. Everything I can find otherwise says there is such a person as the director of the films. The bio there refers to Mondo New York as having a review in Variety, but I can not find it. I can find no evidence whatsoever for his authorship of one of the two novels,"The Eagle and the Sword "; there is a novel by that title published in 1997: it was written by another person.A. A. Attanasio and published by Harper. Are you asserting that this is the same person? The second novel "the Tsar's Engraver" is published by what appears to be a vanity publisher, Firefall Media-- none of the books published under that imprint is in more than 6 libraries--most are not even in worldcat. This book, though published in 2010, is in a total of only one library according to worldcat [6]. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railway switching networks

Nominated @ AfD. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Testing those alternate templates you made

Hey, just a heads up we prepared the user warnings you made. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing#Suggestions at the end. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Charles Scriven for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Scriven is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Scriven until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. noq (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraoihp (talk • contribs) [reply]

Love Fungus

Lower priority, but this is a new article, borderline notability, issue is ext. links. The band has an official website, user is arguing that the facebook page is also the official site, adding to the article. I don't want to get in 3RR territory. Am I wrong in saying if they already have an official website, then the FB, Twitter, Myspace links are generally considered spam when used only as external links? Same with putting their link in both the info box and in external links (thus, twice). Talk:Love Fungus is where it is being argued if you care to jump in. I'm just tired of the overly promotional stuff on so many pages, want to be sure I have the right interpretation. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right interpretation, but, frankly, I don't think it matters all that much. Text usually concerns me more, & I removed a sentence. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“I'd far rather be happy than right any day.” ― Douglas Adams - Point taken, text matters more than one extra link. Tried to source it better, move it from weak to solid sources, not much luck, so will leave alone as a borderline article for now. Thanks again. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PixelMEDIA article (and my other contributions)

Dear DGG, Thank you very much for the comments on my PixelMedia article that you posted at my Talk page. I have revised that article according to your comments and will also revise my previous articles soon using those same comments as a guide. I would appreciate it if you could review the PixelMedia article at your earliest convenience and let me know if it looks okay or if further changes are necessary. I will also inform you as I alter my previous articles so that you can review those as well.

I do have a question: Can you please clarify, or provide an example of, what you were referring to when you mentioned your concern about "the practice of inserting back references in the articles on these application to the products you are discussing"?

Thank you again for your feedback. I greatly appreciate it!Michael Leeman (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replied on your user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful advice, tips, and revisions! I hope to begin reworking my articles this week. Please know how grateful I am for your help.Michael Leeman (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, I have revised two of my contributions - the PixelMEDIA and Widen Enterprises articles - per your recent comments. If you could please let me know how they look, I would be most grateful! I plan to then revise my other contributions accordinglyMichael Leeman (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, I'm sorry to bother you, but when you have a chance can you please look over my revised PixelMEDIA and Widen Enterprises articles? I revised them per your recent comments and would like to know if they look okay to you. Thanks!Michael Leeman (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, I revised the PixelMEDIA article to address all comments on its Discussion Page as well as the issues raised by the three tags. I've removed any promotional phrasing as well as any text passages that may have resembled the text of others. Could you please review and let me know how it looks? Thank you as always!Michael Leeman (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) based on the editor's cleanup, I have removed the maintenance templates from the pixelMedia page. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, You Rock

Thanks for the kind, helpful info about "speedy deletion". I can get refs in the page in 9 days... over this weekend. YOU ROCK!! :D Thanks again, WinkJunior (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Ashman

Significant content was added to Noel Ashman? Really? The whole article is about 3 short paragraphs.....the old article was about 3 short paragraphs. There is hardly any difference in actual content. All this new one has is a list of sources where Ashman was named. But at least the CSD was denied immediately. Whatever. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It added information about other clubs, at the very least, and additional references. AfD is available to decide the issue . I'm not sure what, if anything, I will say there about actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The additional "references" that aren't even cited? I'll let someone else nmominated the AfD.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 85

DGG, I'm sorry to bother you if you've already seen this and decided not to comment, but if you have not, I wonder if you'd mind taking a look? Thanks.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this too, if you have the chance: User_talk:Cardiffchestnut#Papyri— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica

Hello sir!

Thank you for changing the status of the article I made today. I've been adding more sources. Do you maybe have a suggestion as to how many more I should add (i.e. how many are sufficient)?

All the best and thanks again!

Tempo21 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's not the number of sources, but their nature. What is needed is not more sources quoting him, but more explicitly 3rd party sources ,that discuss him and his work-- preferably from academic historians or philosophers. Is the book mentioned the only published work? Has anyone referred to it in subsequent work? That's what is needed to show actual notability. The present article was fully enough to pass the weak standard necessary for speedy deletion, but you'll need this sort of material to meet the higher standards of the general guideline, WP:GNG or the one for writers, WP:AUTHOR DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Tosi

Thanks, good tip. I've actually nominated a fair number of copy-vios, but missed this one. The article is back, and tagged as a G12. The editor involved may be worth a further look - he has been regularly creating inappropriate articles and removing speedy deletion tags despite multiple warnings. Seems to be sailing close to a block for disruption? Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words - our messages crossed in the ether, I think. Don't worry, I am not disheartened by any of the talk page stuff. Thanks for the good advise. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as for that editor, I was about to go there. Your judgment is perfectly right, they indeed do need watching. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for deletion

While trying to take care of some of the files at Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale just now, I found this: File:Adanlaserpente.jpg and see that the original uploader seems not to have been notified of the problem. Looking further at the tagging user's contributions, it looks like he/she has been tagging files for deletion for a few days, but not notifying the uploader of the problem.

No idea what the solution is for this, as I know there will be plenty of upset people if the files are deleted and they weren't notified. TIA for any help you can provide. We hope (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of sending him email, put an object on the person's talk page where others can see it. I find public "reminders" can do wonders. There is currently no requirement that anyone be notified of any deletion: the correct place to argue to make it a requirement is WT:CSD, where , unfortunately, one or two arch-deletionists will object and block consensus-- because, to the extent our procedures have any degree of fairness or equity, it will make their anti=constructive work more difficult.

such people are even more prevalent at discussions of images than they are of articles, which is one of the reasons I do not work on images here.

while we are waiting on such things, notify them yourselves, or even better, fix the deletion rationales. My own view is that any reasonable attempt to fix the rationale justifies removal of the tag. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was in the middle of a page merge but can't move the page without an admin. Could you please move Jo + Broadway to Swingin' Down Broadway while I start letting people know about the deletion tagging? Thanks again, We hope (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done; I also updated the image rationale. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but fwiw, please warn me when what seems like a simple request, like your previous oneat the start of this section , will get me involved in a long-standing discussion ; I will usually check first, but it helps me avoid errors to be specifically told, and also clarifies things for anyone seeing the talk page here or trying to follow things regarding the original dispute. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry--will do in future. Was just amazed at how many were tagged for deletion for one reason or another and no notification for it. I went through a week's worth of contributions for the user looking for files and notified everyone who appeared not to have received deletion notices. AFAIK, all whose photos were tagged are now notified of it. Thanks for moving the page and for putting up with me! :-) We hope (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I bother you again about this as the lack of notification continues. We hope (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ileft what I hope is a tactful note. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks-I notified someone who wasn't notified in this round and think there will be notice given from this point on. BTW--I've never seen you be less than tactful. ;-) We hope (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI closures by involved admins

Given your earlier comments about involved admins closing ANI discussions, I wondered if you have any comments on this: [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think his closing it the second time is in any way justifiable. But I will not take the same action twice. There's a very strict rule against wheel-warring, enforced with the same degree of common sense as the laws in The Mikado. True, closing an an/i is not really an admin action, but it's too close to one for my comfort. However, you may not be the best person to carry this further--you are too involved and it will only lead to trouble for you. I left him a comment. If he does not take my advice, undoubtedly someone not previously active in this will notice. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm far too involved to do anything myself (which is rather the point) - I'm glad to see you agree that it was inappropriate though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for my comment at User talk:EdJohnston#AN/I problem. Looks moot. Let me know on my talk page if there is still an issue. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is moot as the ed. in question reverted. I hope someone else will close it though, as the original AfD has been closed again, in what I consider a very satisfactory manner. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: speedies

Thank you for your detailed explanation on the differences between A7 and G11. Will help me in future patrolling. Thank you. -EmadIV (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Kaur (Jermakov)

DGG, I've left you a question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Kaur (Jermakov). Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replied. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foster Natural Gas Report

Hello David! I hope you can assist with finding some information concerning the Foster Natural Gas Report. There are two claims which are probably true but needs some sources. The first one is that the Foster Natural Gas Report was previously named Foster Associates Report. The second claim is that it was founded on March 23, 1956 by economist dr. J. Rhoades Foster. Unfortunately there are no online sources on these claims, but I hope you are able to assist with your knowledge on traditional librarian searches. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that;s trivial, and not really needed, though I'll try to find it. What is actually needed for the article and the AfD is a database review, and that is not as easy to find, though I'll start looking. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UWTEST members update

Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.

Here's what we're up to lately:

Huggle: There are tests still running in Huggle of level 1 templates, including a new template written by DGG. A full list is available here
SDPatrolBot: There is a new test running on the talk page messages of SDPatrolBot, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is here.)
Twinkle: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 1, 2) This test should start this week.
Shared and dynamic IPs: Maryana's proposal to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests: 1, 2
XLinkBot: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are being written and help is most welcome.

Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Network for Better Futures

Hi. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to revise my attempt at a page for The Network for Better Futures. I followed your instructions and posted revised copy on the page you set up for me to do so. Please let me know if I can proceed with creating the page. JDBurget/The Network for Better Futures Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDBurget (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest rewriting the first two lists into paragraphs, and making another check for the use of stock phrases and unnecessary words. I check in a day or two and move to mainspace. I cannot guarantee that someone will not put it up for regular deletion, nor have I any particular influence on the result. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I rewrote the lists as paragraphs and did one last sweep for stock phrases and unnecessary words. Also, I linked in with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Wikipedia page so it would not be an orphan. Please let me know when you move into the mainspace. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this. Thanks. JDBurget (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)JDBurget[reply]

Hello - noticed that the JDBurget version of this article is now live - can you change the title so that it doesn't include the JDBurget portion? So that it's just 'The Network for Better Futures'....Thanks.

JDBurget (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)JDBurget[reply]

Novelguide

I am reaching out for help to revive the article that I wrote some time ago about an educational website - Novelguide.com. As of today, there are 549 articles here on wikipedia that site this website for its content. I used the google search box under the wikipedia search results to find this number. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Novelguide User:AbbyWaters —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have 3rd party substantial references? DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about GNG

Hi DGG

I wrote these comments in a current AfD discussion.

I would be very interested in your views on two questions:

. Does the nature of the source of significant coverage (i.e., the prominence, reputation, scope, readership, etc.)—beyond likelihood of factual accuracy—in fact bear on GNG-based outcomes at AfD discussions?
. Do you think that such factors should bear on whether a subject is said to pass GNG?

Thank you, ^Bongo_matic 01:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

of course the differences matter; both for justification for facts and for notability, sources are not in a reliable | non-reliable dichotomy, they're in a spectrum of reliability. We usually do in practice take account of this. More at the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Didn't see your comments—did you save the page? ^Bongo_matic 04:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be there now. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate your taking the time. ^Bongo_matic 05:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just to chime in... I fully agree that the GNG is a valuable tool by which we measure notability. But I also see that the SNGs are themselves valuable tools we are encouraged to consider when sigcov is lacking. I am in full agreement that both require verifiability in reliable sources, and such suitability of a source is dependent upon what is being sourced. I see GNG and SNGs as two related keys that open the same lock. Where's the argument? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in general, yes, but it varies by subject. Sometimes the SNGs are there as a shortcut so we don't have to evaluate details of sourcing; sometimes they're there as a further limitation, often together with WP:NOT ; sometimes they're there because conventional sourcing yields paradoxical or useless results ( A good example is the standards for athletes, which does all 3: first, if they've major accomplishments, we don't have to worry about souring details beyond WP:V, because we know they'll be there; second, because it eliminates people from lower levels of the sport, even though local news sources may cover them; third, because for some early Olympians all we can really do is find WP:V in the records & it would be weird to eliminate them while including those of a slightly later period. In some cases, the relationship is unclear: for Politicians, it remains debated to what extent minor officials with local coverage count. Anyway, I've described what I think is the general view--as I did at that AfD.

My own view of what ought to be done is a little different. I would discard the GNG except as a backup if nothing will work, and judge by actual importance, measured if possible by something objective, (Such as the charting requirement for popular music--perhaps it lets in too much, but better that than continual debating about individual songs.) Unlike what the guideline seems to say, importance does make for notability--I consider them synonyms. Popularity also makes for notability, but it's not a synonym, because the unpopular can also be important and therefore notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I have your input, please?

I've just come up with this essay on civility, in the hope that it might be a useful link from various places. Could I please have your comments on it? Many thanks, Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A favour

David, if you have a moment I wonder if you could please take a very quick look at this for me? It's only stub I've drafted, but it's way off my normal area for referencing and I don't think I can assert it's notability. If I'm wasting my time with it, don't hesitate to let me know and I'll delete it. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly an academic journal, but a literary magazine published from a university. I changed the stub & category to fit, and added some information. There is no special criterion for such magazines, but it is included in JSTOR and that should be sufficient for notability. It's probably indexed in a few places also, but I didn't check. If you can find the earlier editors, they should be added, because all of them are almost certainly notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project

There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tool for you!

Hi DGG! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName 
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. So long! --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletion II: Academy of Achievement

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:Academy of Achievement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks. I just found your name in the article history. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

I am getting the new Huggle test ready today, and I was wondering... some of the short versions have a link to the diff, while others do not. It might be interesting to test overall whether referring to the diff or pagename is better. Do you mind if I standardize them, and if I do, would rather they all include a reference to the diff or not? My instinct is to remove it and see if that has an effect. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--omit the diff & we'll check that later; DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the quick response. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Grandma's Gifts

Hi, I saw you deleted this under G8, but must admit I'm confused – I don't see that the page when deleted was a redirect at all? Do you mind if I move the user's subpage there and undelete to merge histories? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 02:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had deleted and then realized my error and restored the article, but forgot to restore the talk page also. (that's what G8 is also for) I've now done that. My apologies for any confusion. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G4 on Muttahida Tehrik-e-Khatm-e-Nabuwat Raabta Committee

Apologies, I forgot to list the previous delete discussion when tagging with {{db-g4}}. I added it now. By the way, if you look at the block logs you see the discussion there, on the 4 May deletion, that's how I knew about it. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I should have found it myself. I've deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in law

DGG, can you expand on your decision about Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls/List of important publications in law? I'm not sure what you mean by "the problems are related". RockMagnetist (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had marked it for speedy as uncontroversial maintenance. Nothing about the "Lists of publications" is uncontroversial. I commented that the problems of reconstructing a proper article are related to the problems with the others articles in that group. If you take it to MfD, I shall argue that the page ought to be developed, not removed, and then restored to mainspace under one or another title. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I agree that this article should be developed. However, in its existing form it is an abortion. Curb Chain created this stub instead of userfying List of publications in law or putting it in the incubator. I would like to see it done right, and done by someone who cares about the content. The entry in WikiProject Science pearls is an embarrassment and may actually interfere with a proper revival of the list. If you see a better way of dealing with this mess, I'm open to suggestions. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - Oh sage master of dilemma resolution. I suggested that Rock tag this article for G6CSD. In October it was nominated for deletion, deleted, and went through DRV which upheld the deletion. You restored the article for the DRV (temporaily per your edit summary). During the DRV or shortly after the DRV, User:Curb Chain moved it to his user space. Then subsequently moved it twice with new names into the Science Pearls project where it resides at present. Curb Chain has no intention on working on the article (stated in a edit summary) and apparently no one in the Science Pearls task force is interested either. There's not much (an never was much) in the list in its current state. If someone was starting this from scratch, it would probably be significantly different than it is now. So here's our dilemma. If someone moves this article out of the Science Pearls project to the mainspace, they would just be recreating a deleted article verbatim without any discussion. If it remains in the Science Pearls project space, the likelyhood that anyone will know its there and work on it is slim. And until someone really spends some time improving it, it really can't be moved into the mainspace over the deletion decision. All the parties here really believe in these types of lists, so this isn't a deletion/inclusion issue, but merely situation where we have an orphaned article unilaterally moved into a project where no one is really interested in it. What do you suggest? Leave it isolated in the Science Pearls project, delete it, or more it to the mainspace had hope no one notices? --Mike Cline (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can reasonably want to move it to mainspace now (& to hope no one notices in this case would be absurd.). We could certainly move it to my user space, except that it is not really one of the articles I want most to work on, though I have been known to work on articles I don't really want to just to show off my abilities to do the unlikely. But if we remove it altogether, it is even less likely to be worked on than with any of the alternatives. The solution then is to find someone to adopt it. One of the intrinsic limitations at Wikipedia is there is no way to get anybody to do anything unles it amuses them. Perhaps someone will see this and volunteer; otherwise, I'll go look for someone. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be delighted, but amazed, if you find someone. It's a curious fact that many of these bibliographies get a lot of traffic but little editorial support. I revived two deleted lists, Bibliography of biology and Bibliography of sociology, that could easily have been protected from deletion by a few good references - but no one did. A few other lists may owe their survival of the recent AfDs to members of this project who provided the references. However, all of these bibliographies had plenty of good content already. The idea of starting a list from scratch, for a field that I know little about, does not attract me. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Thanks. Your on the case and things will work out. You taught me patience on WP so I will be (at least on some things)! --Mike Cline (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace req

Could you please userspace Pool TV to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Pool TV? I'm sure it can be worked on a bit and restored. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- and it was only prodded, so feel free to move it to mainspace whenever you think it can pass an AfD if there should be one. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding entries from Marketing Metrics book on Wikipedia

After reviewing your comments, I would like to fill you in our proposed changes:

(1) We have worked directly with the authors (including Dr. Paul Farris, Darden School of Business, and Dr. David Reibstein, Wharton School of Business) to obtain the rights to use the Marketing Metrics book on Wikipedia, and the publisher of the book (Pearson Education, Inc.) has agreed to this usage. Would you please let us know exactly what documentation we need to send to you or Wikipedia? Once we get the information, we will forward the resulting document(s) to you as soon as possible.

(2) We will review each of the existing entries to ensure quotation marks on all information quoted directly from the Marketing Metrics book and add additional sources where possible.

(3) We would like to work with you to properly construct the MASB information at the end of the reference to reflect the intent of the project (described below).

(4) Finally, we would also like to work with you directly to avoid or resolve any questions or issues that may arise as we work to increase the understanding of marketing by improving marketing entries on Wikipedia.

Our Wikipedia participation is on behalf of the MASB Common Language Project led by Dr. Paul Farris (University of Virginia Darden School of Business), Carl Spaulding (Nielsen Catalina Ventures), and Dr. David Reibstein (Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania). The objective of the project is to eliminate ambiguity in marketing terminology and definitional differences among marketing, C-suite management, and finance within organizations and across businesses and industries by establishing MASB-endorsed common language for marketing activities and metrics.

Our ultimate goal is to encourage marketing academics and practitioners to write and revise Wikipedia entries so that Wikipedia becomes the repository of “common language” for marketers and becomes a preferred source for definitions of marketing activities and metrics, much as the Association for Psychological Science “Wikipedia Initiative” is attempting to do for psychology. To this end, we are discussing with the American Marketing Association how to engage their members in our effort.

The Marketing Accountability Foundation and its Marketing Accountability Standards Board is the independent, private sector, self-governing body authorized by its membership constituency to establish marketing measurement and accountability standards across industry and domain, for continuous improvement in financial performance and for the guidance and education of business decision makers and users of performance and financial information. The body is operated exclusively for charitable, educational, scientific, & literary purposes within the meaning of Section 501 (c) (3) of Internal Revenue Code and its members include academics and practitioners from the marketing and finance disciplines.

Karenmharvey (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted if we could have this material; I have frequently expressed the dismay at out lack of coverage on these subjects. There are, as you have noticed, some problems:

Licensing is relatively straightforward, but you must do more than just permit the work to be used in Wikipedia. Wikipedia content must be free--free for anyone in the world to use and reuse as they see fit. Therefore, you must explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing, using the WP:CC-BY-SA and the GFDL licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials; be aware that these licenses give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes. in any manner they choose, provided they attribute the content. The necessary licenses must be sent from the copyright owner of the material as prescribed at WP:DCM to our OTRS system.

But you need to understand that Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit--anyone who wishes to change or add to your material can do so, provided they have a source for their changes. Contributors here have no right of WP:OWNership. The actual quotations can of course not be tampered with, but any person, qualified or not, can remove or replace them or write something else entirely-- Wikipedia entries are not stable, and there is no person or group here with actual authority to decide what is the best version. There is nothing here that corresponds to the roles of a conventional editor-in-chief, or conventional referees. Changes do need to be discussed if challenged, but the result is decided by the consensus of whomever appears. We do not accept arguments from authority: if someone is a true expert in the subject they will need to show it not by formal qualifications, but by being able to make the most convincing arguments.

This is very much a different form of publication. So Wikipedia is not actually suitable for an actual standard: if you have a standard you want to control and make it available, you should host it on your own site. If you want other people to freely use it, including anyone who may want to write here, place the two licenses specified above on each web page.

I hope the psychology project you mention goes well; concern has been expressed about whether the self-confident amateurs and those out to prove a pet theory who abound in that field, often with fixed political or religious or cultural positions, will interfere with the entries so much as to make it unsatisfactory for their proper purposes. Some previous contributions in that subject area from true experts have been challenged and even rejected by those with a particular point of view. Those who, like myself, have an academic background and are devoted to honest science as much as to free content, try to help as much as possible, but we cannot guarantee to succeed, and we can act only as individuals. The projects which have gone well are those in subjects like dermatology or chemistry, where the unknowledgable or biased are not very likely to sound convincing. But I think the odds are very much in your favor: marketing and accounting and other such areas of business should be fields where this too can be accomplished--unlike some other areas of applied and theoretical economics.

As another point, Wikipedia is international, covering the whole world, not just English-speaking countries. You will presumably be presenting material according to the usual practice in the United States. You need to be sure to explicitly say so, and write in such a way that others can add corresponding sections explaining the meaning in their own country. You do not of course have to do it yourself, though if you do know the differences , it would be good to explain them to some extent. If the US practice is worldwide also, by all means say so, but do not write it such as way that the reader will assume it if it is not the case.

References should be not just to the works of your own group. The way of showing their degree of acceptance is to give references from other works. works clearly of authority in the subject such as standard textbooks. Make sure all schools of thought are represented, or at least indicated, if there should be differences.

It would be good to write an article on the MASB Common Language Project. There are obvious problems of WP:Conflict of Interest, but there is no reason not to write the article, explain the COI on the talk p; others will check it. If you tell me at a suitable point, I for one will do so. This of course also applies to the other organizations mentioned; it probably should also apply to the senior academics leading the group as individuals. Remember that the general reader is not concerned withthe details of internal organization, and outside references to the group or individual are needed also.

There are special problems in articles where the terms are used; do not make direct references to your group in every likely article. The internal links will lead to the main article on the term in question.

Remember we need more than definitions--what would help is context--the historical development and social implications of the particular terminology. Please be aware of our sister project, WP:Wiktionary, which is explicitly a dictionary and does want definitions--you might want to add material there also. They have their own rules, but they too fare free content in the same sense we are.

Now, I must give you a caveat: I speak here for myself only. (and, though I have some experience at Wikipedia, I am not in any sense a professional in your subject and have no relevant academic training or practical experience-. Actually, I have worked extensively with the publishers an academic librarian buys from, with whom I have many good relationships, and have learned much about their marketing perspectives.) Anyone else here who wants to differ from me, can do so. I have tried my best, however, to give you what I believe to be the standard policy and practices here, at least as I understand it. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Ho

Our friend George Ho has decided to go no holds barred on Argentine movies with AFDs like El Hijo del crack. He does not appear to be aware that articles can be expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another admin has given him an indef block. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what it is you are upset about by asking me to retract my comments. I'd like to add that's something I'll never do on wikipedia is retract what I say. I don't say things unless I mean them and I don't think I've said anything out of order. I have been perfectly fair with him at ANI by proposing he works with me and unless he drops the attitude and mass targetting of images and articles then I'm unlikely to be cooperative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(lurker) i'm with you, but you lost me at "When you mess with something I've uploaded or created you are messing with me"..."Believe you me I will make things bitterly difficult for you". the alarming thing is how he is symptomatic: vindictive deletions are tolerated; better not to stoop to that level; if following policy should make disruptive difficult, that is a bonus; let Nemesis do the work. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thats the point I was trying to make: over-prersonalized language always makes the situation worse, and , on a purely practical level, gives the other party an opening to complain. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt

David, in you co-nomination you refer to comments that I should have made, but (unless that was somewhere else) I have hardly ever participated in RFA debates, so perhaps you're mixing me up with someone else? --Guillaume233 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this and the preceding comments show, I was working a little too fast last night. I changed to the name I should have used all along. my co-nom, Spartaz DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptions of Library and Information Science

Ran across this while new page patrolling on the back part of the list. It would be good to have another set of eyes just look at it, and maybe another sentence or two in the intro. I can't think of anyone better for this than you. If you get the time. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made some comments about library holdings on the talk p: the only really widely held one was the issue distributed as part of a very well known general series, but, given the a small no. of library schools in the world, how much can be expected? I had heard of the first vol, but never realised it was going to become a series. The problem I have with Wikipedia articles on subjects like this is not that they're barely notable, but that there are so many much more notable ones we don't have. To some extent it's inevitable in a encyclopedia where individual interest defines what gets written. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Hi, could you perhaps have a look at this section on the Hindawi talk page? Is that blog indeed a reliable source? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent notability for elementary schools which have been "Blue Ribbon Schools"

I am contacting you because you participated in either the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in a redirect or the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in restoration of the article because it was once a "Blue Ribbon School". I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools" as to whether the 5200 schools which have been found awarded the "Blue Ribbon" seal of approval get inherent notability, or if they each have to satisfy WP:ORG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your input is welcome. Thanks! Edison (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Should I have made this a "RFC?" I rarely get involved in such general policy forums. Edison (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the way we've been doing it recently, it would best be to be made an RfC. But it should not be worded "inherent notability " but "presumption of notability", and, personally, though I care relatively little for these articles one way or another, I do care to maintain the existing compromise, because it protects the high school articles, about which I do care: I don't care about the articles per se, but on having topics for new editors. It is not realistic for most elementary school pupils to be able to handle Wikipedia editing well, but ti is realistic for high school students. These days I care moe about helping new editors get started than I care about any article. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi David. I seem to recall that we may once have possibly been in disagreement over the notability of schools. Without prejudice to you opinion (and I can't really remember exactly what it was), there is a discussion taking place at this project that may be of interest. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been there. There's such a simple rule to follow: high schools yes, others no, that I can't see why anyone would bother except those who really want to argue the details of sourcing for 50,000 individual articles. I can see Wikipedia as a good place for those who like to argue, and sometimes I'm one of them, but there are more interesting things to argue about--some of which even have significant consequences, and a few of which represent the highest goal of human understanding, helping development of one's ethical principles. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, we seem to have been in total agreement after all. I can't understand why anyone would want to drag this peren issue up again, especially so soon after the last one floundered. There is better work to be done than flushing out thousands of high school articles for deletion or even arguing about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UWTEST update

Hi DGG,

We're currently busy designing some new tests, and we need your feedback/input!

ImageTaggingBot - a bot that warns users who upload images but don't provide adequate source or license information (drafts here)
CorenSearchBot - a bot that warns users who copy-paste text from external websites or other Wikipedia articles (drafts here)

We also have a proposal to test new "accepted," "declined," and "on-hold" templates at Articles for Creation (drafts here). The discussion isn't closed yet, so please weigh in if you're interested.

Thanks for your help! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NETWORK PROBLEMS

.I expect to continue to have only erratic access for about the next week. If it is urgent, and does not involve me specifically, please ask elsewhere. DGG' ( talk ) 00:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)I[reply]

High schools

You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#RfC Mock-up. TerriersFan (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Scholar Indices and Impact

Could you perhaps have a look at this article and the remarks I made at this talk page and tell me what you think? Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Littman

You know the guidelines better than anyone else I know when it comes to academics. Please take a looks when you can. I had just tagged for notability, original creator thinks it doesn't need it. Rather than debate, I would leave it in your experienced hands if you have the time. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

certainly notable, as is generally the case for full professors at a leading world-famous research university like NYU (I used the word "generally," which I think vague enough to accommodate the various views: there is considerable disagreement about whether it is "always the case,", ""almost always the case" or 'very often the case" -- my own view, as I think is well-known, is that it is always the case, and the problem is only in deciding which universities it applies to. However, not everyone working on these articles agrees with me, including some of my most trusted friends here, so I am not sure "always" would be the consensus position at this time. My argument is similar to that on many other topics--we have much to gain by not having debates about every one of the tens of thousands of articles involved. We hare more harmed by inappropriate promotional articles about academics --just as about everything else--than we are by slight variations in the standard of notability. Time spent at AfD on determining borderline notability is time that should be better spent in patrolling new articles (and re-patrolling the older ones). Much better to have a simple standard, and concern ourselves with content. But in any case, this particular full professor is notable, but, as is often the case, the article needs a little rewriting isn't done in quite the best way to show it, and I will either do some rewriting or at least offer some advice for doing it. I apologize for not going into the details here, but they'll be clear in the finished articles, where the citations will show him an expert in his subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(and for over 100 earlier discussions on this & closely related issues from my talk p, see my topic archive, User talk:DGG/Academic Things and People talk ). DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stuartyeates

This user is a good candidate for autopatrolled rights, I think. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done. Perhaps it will encourage him to create more of his high quality articles and spend less time pasting identical AfD !deletes. DGG ( talk ) 11:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Underhill Society of America

Thanks for your input on Underhill, I always learn something new when you are involved. Could you take a look at the related AFDs? I have !voted delete on a couple, and wondering if I am mistaken on these and don't want to delete stuff that should be here. Many of these have improved since I first got involved as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my nom on two of them after reading your rationale. It appears I was a bit quick on the draw. Normally, only having a citation for an obit *would* be a reason for AFD, but not if it is an unpaid obit from an institution as large as the NYT. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not size exactly, but selectivity. The only other newspaper obits that are routinely accepted here this way for obit is the London Times. There are probably others that are suitable in other countries, but I' not familiar with them. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I walked away for a couple of days because my confidence was really shaken in Wikipedia and the motivation of some editors. I must admit that you and Dennis Brown helped to restore my confidence again. Considering the fact that David Harris Underhill, Estelle Skidmore Doremus, and William Wilson Underhill all have editorial obits from the New York Times, can we lift the RFD from these pages as has already been done with John Torboss Underhill? At a minimum it might be sensible to include the NYT editorial obit comment on the talk pages with a note to "Keep." This will help to alert the administrator responsible for closing the discussion about the importance of keeping the page. Let me know your thoughts on the best way to proceed with this. Thanks again DGG. I can't tell you how appreciative I am for your efforts. Placepromo (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

before the article can be speedy kept, the people who asked for deletion of the article must first withdraw the afd. Ask them. And then someone else must close the discussion--not anyone who has joined in it, like you or me. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I've been having a lot of trouble with Toddst1. Seems to me like he has a vendetta against everyone named Underhill (which I find bizarre), and won't be satisfied until at least one page has been deleted. This is what he wrote on the Francis Jay Underhill AFD discussion page: "Delete: and transwiki to Underhillpedia. DGG is wrong about the obit satisfying GNG per MelanieN. Toddst1 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)." Also, with respect to your comment about the Speedy Keep, the Underhill Society of America article has consensus on Keep, though was also put up for more discussion. The William Wilson Underhill has consensus on Keep as well, though no one has come along to remove the AFD. Any further help or insights you can provide would be more than welcome. IDKremer (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Achievement

Hi there DGG, you were recently involved, briefly, on the discussion page about an organization called Academy of Achievement. Prior to November, it was much too promotional; at present, I think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, as I've explained in a note on the article's discussion page—and as I see you warned in your previous note on the same page. I think I endorse your viewpoint that an EduCap article could be created to address its controversies, but the treatment it is given here represents a clear case of coatracking.

It's worth noting that I've been engaged by the Academy to help resolve the matter; in hopes of doing so efficiently, I've prepared a proposed replacement (in my user space here) that I hope presents an acceptable compromise, or a workable starting point. Hope you can join in discussion on that Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

The ones I chainsawed were full of things like "[Name of show] has an episode [with very similar but not identical name], an obvious shout-out", which is original research, or "[Name of show] mentioned this in very faint passing". I fail to see how one line of throwaway dialogue in a 22-minute episode warrants a relevant mention. Something more obvious, like "The creator of [show Y] cites [show X] as a primary influence" is fine on both Show Y and Show X's articles, as long as the claim is verified. But I just don't think we need every tangential little mention, especially in list form, which looks ugly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

first of all, I would never say that everything in these sections was good, but you deleted the entire sections, the good and bad indiscriminately. (What I consider bad is analogies that are not documented or obvious, and of uses in non-notable works or unimportant contexts.) So are you telling me you had examined every item there and found that there was nothing useable in them according to your standards? I don't think so, because you consistently cite the worst, and use it as the justification for everything.

Second, your standard is wrong--At the very least there's certainly a general consensus that it is fully sufficient for the item to be significant in the work, not only if it is the primary theme or influence of it. But below even being important, even the little details are significant, for they are what show the cultural influence of a prior work , or natural or human-made object, or theme. This is how the cultural network is built. The significance of something is that it becomes a standard example that others will recognize. Entire art forms are constructed around this principle: parody, mash-up, collage, sampling. But even in ordinary work, its important what is shown: this is the sort of thing people study in not just literature and cultural studies, but history. There are books and articles, both scholarly and popular, written on , for example, the specific naval references in Jane Austen. or the geographic elements used by Shakespeare,the drinks people drink in a fictional work, the legendary characters or historical events they assume the audience will know about. This sort of information should be part of the content of a comprehensive encyclopedia like ours, which is not limited except by what people want to include.

Third, with respect to documentation, that something is the main theme or important or occurs in a work can be sourced from the work itself. It's one of the standard exceptions for the use of primary sources.

Finally, the wholesale elimination of the dozens of sections , some of them from major articles, in the course of a few days, done without discussion--and especially the reverts when people restored them-- were unconstructive. Even from your point of view, indiscriminate over-hasty zeal diminishes the value of what you were doing. You use the word "chainsawed." It was an accurate description, but perhaps you didn't mean to use it, for that word has the implications of vandalism. Had you instead taken out the worst of the junk, it would have been a positive contribution. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mechademia

If you have a moment, could you perhaps have a lok at this article? There are a few small problems here. There's a list of issues "sourced" to Amazon.com. There's also an extensive "reception" section with some cherry-picked quotes. And some editors (see talk) vehemently oppose inclusion of links to the journal page at Project MUSE (because that is apparently spam for a paysite, whereas the Amazon links are sources...) Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment there. But it's good to see a journal article that does have reviews of the journal. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School AfDs

Of the 120 or so primary schools that were suddenly mass proposed for deletion over the holiday period, roughly half are being redirected and half are being deleted, and some are apparently being deleted without properly evaluating the consensus. Not only is it contrary to any effort to adhere to consistency in the way policies, guidelines, or precedents are applied throughout the encyclopedia, but such arbitrary voting and closing by those who are not aware of the policies, guidelines, and precedents, does not accord equal debate treatment for similar or near identical articles. The situation is now getting ridiculous and a ruling is urgently required one way or another that we can all follow and save unnecessary bureaucracy. Personally, I very strongly support the redirection of nn schools and its clearly established precedent, but if policy does get changed, I'd kowtow to whichever way the cookie crumbles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is basically an extreme illustration of the usual impossibility of getting valid decisions out of the AfD process relying on a volunteer jury system with few participants except for the sensational cases, and judges who are equally likely to ignore what the consensus says and decide on their own account, and follow the consensus even when it had no basis in policy. Difficulty in making decisions is an inescapable byproduct of anarchy, but I think we're committed here to seeing how good an encyclopedia we can produce with ordinary people under non-authority-regulated conditions, even if only as an experiment. That the experiment does as well as it does shows the resilience of Kropotkin's ideas. I was raised on Trotsky's, but soon came to realize, as did the Trotskyists, what if the other guys were the ones in power. You either rebel & get shot, hoping to be rehabilitated in the eventual revolution, or, like most people, join the winning side and pretend it is't evil. Perhaps it is sufficient that the internet has changed the structure of human life, by making obsolete the old slogan, that freedom of the press is for the man who owns one. I'd much rather talk about this than the immediate problem, about which look here in a few hours. DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help for "Marketing Metrics" book

The authors of this book are interested in making it open source. Can you let me know what licensing will need to be filled out to make this possible? Also, could you provide me with an example of a Wikipedia entry for a textbook? Thanks so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karenmharvey (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to make it open source, it must be published on the web with a CC-BY-ATT or CC-BY license or the equivalent, or better; a print only book could be published open source, letting people copy & redistribute as much as they want by scanning or photocopy, but if the purpose is widespread use, doing it that way doesn't help all that much; if the purpose is only letting people freely reuse pieces of it, it's a conceivable method. Examples of opens source books are Wikipedia: The Missing Manual by John Broughton in print) online at our own site ; an example near your subject is at [8] and their print price list. Note that their book are CC3.0-ATT-NC-SA, and would thus not be considered open source for Wikipedia purposes) There's a good discussion at opensourcetext.org; see also opentextbook.org DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mechademia edits

You made some comments about the scholarly journal Mechademia, which deals with manga and anime. The full text and all tables of contents for Mechademia are available for free at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mechademia/ and all articles can be downloaded for free. I added the link on the talk page, but not in the article itself. Check the link yourself and then, if you want, add it to the article. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the page, you'll find vol 4 of Mechademia is available. That wasn't clear in what I just said -- sorry about that. Hope this is clearer. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the case. Only sample issues can--at present, vol.4. If you see more than that, you are working within the domain of a college or library that has a subscription. I'll forward you a screen shot if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can get the ToCs from the link I gave, not only for Vol. 4 but for the others too. Except for Vol. 4, downloading costs money, but the ToCs are on the link. Let me go back and check them all. I'll be right back. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all the ToCs are available -- I just checked. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what most journals do: the TOCs at least are readable, and there is a sample issue or volume available free. A great many, including all or most of the journal backfiles at JSTOR, have abstracts free also. A very few don't even let you see the TOC, which is f rather silly--free TOCs and abstracts help sell article access. Usually we do not give the specifics of this in the article, because it;s fairly standard and subject to change. We certainly don't let any journal doing this imply they have free access. Now, if we could persuade the publishers to make everything free except the most recent issue or two, it would be a small step forward--though that of course is not open access, which requires the final version to be free to read and otherwise use upon publication, which, from the point of view of disseminating ideas, is the only acceptable solution. I sort of know this by heart, having spent the last 10 years of my professional career on negotiating and arranging for e-journal access for a university (and have kept up since then), and been since 1999 an active advocate of true open access. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, true... I too have spent many years on the editorial boards of several scholarly journals but have mixed feelings about open access. Until we can find free money to pay the printer, journals will not be free to readers. In an ideal world -- well, in an ideal world, there would be world peace, clean air, no crime -- we don't live in an ideal world. So we have paid subscribers, who provide the cash we need to pay the printer. But I agree that ideally open and free access would be wonderful. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Cooperation

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silverseren^C 01:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

certainly I'm interesting, but I think we should try for a more specific name--more specific, but that won't scare people away, like the notorious ARS. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you

Hi David. Sorry to bother you but once again I need your expert advice. The situation with the mass AfDs of school articles has now gone critical and complex. Something needs to be done urgently, but I don't particularly wish for my talk page to become the venue for the inevitable dramafest, and we need to know where best to take it. You'll need to read this thread and this thread. Thanks in advance your advice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of historical works

Looks like you instigated the deletion of historical important works of Kewill. At first glance Kewill page could look like commercial promotion. But did you actually read the document thoroughly, or give an inkling to wondering why the document existed on Wikipedia for close to ten years? It must be great using your power without any notion of hubris to snub out history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boul22435 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am always willing to reconsider; since I am human, I make errors. I also have the emotions of a human being, and I prefer to discuss matters with people who treat me politely, but having volunteered to be an admin here, I accept the responsibility of helping even those who address me as you do with as much grace as I can muster. I think if you'll check on my talk page you'll find I am considered among the most sympathetic of all admins to articles on such subjects, but that does not mean I tolerate articles such as this, be they old or new. I never said that Kewall was necessarily an inappropriate subject for an article, though that needs to be shown by references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases--the data pages from Reuters, etc. are usable as references for the financial data, but do not show notability. I deleted the article because it was so promotional it was unacceptable without more than routine rewriting. That the article has been here a long time can be simply an indication that nobody has sufficiently looked at it; our standards having risen, we are much more likely to deal critically with new articles than older ones. Examining the edit history, I see no regular editor except yourself has ever dealt substantially with it.

If you are willing to work on it according to our standards, I will restore the article to your user space for a limited time. I had examined it sufficiently to make the problems unmistakably clear; I have now re-examined it sentence by sentence. As a guide, among the elements that I consider promotional are: the emphasis upon the great constructive role of the current ceo; the inclusion of the dates of tenure of multiple officers other than the ceo--we include this only for much larger companies; the description of the overall field of business rather than the company specifically, the use of jargon; the repetition; the failure to describe specifically what the products are; the use of vague adjective of quality and praise; and the greatly excessive use of the corporate name--the words to use are "the firm", "the company", or, even better , "it". I also note the absence of basic data on numbers of staff, financial turnover, and, if possible, market share--this is important for all companies and sources are available.

When you have finished, let me know, and I will look at it and restore it to mainspace if suitable. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring Kewill page to my space. Apologize for not giving grace, I have had a succession of quality articles unnecessarily deleted from Wikipedia. In one severe case Suksma Ratri page a women from Asia Pacific who's addressed the UN general assembly on criminalization of vulnerable HIV sex workers garnering the support from Annie Lennox, OBE. Opening [UN] Speech by Suksma Ratri on Youtube. Compare to PARC/Google friend who advises the Wikimedia main board on HCI and another who's annually donated 20,000 USD gain new pages without suffering the dreaded fast delete flag. My sense is Wikipedia has become unbalanced with too much power concentrated in some admin's hands (thank you for reconsidering and advising). In other digital social networks concentrated power in one group of editors or contributors seems to have lead to a rapid fail from grace at MySpace, HI5, Digg. Putting up with some messy imperfect democratic contributions to Wikipedia seems to be a healthy design. A la: Facebook, Twitter, Google+ dmode (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for your advice

Hi, DGG. I came across a G7 speedy tag at James E. Wise, Jr. and declined it as the subject looked notable at a cursory glance. G7 makes no mention of notability and I don't understand why. Are we to ignore notability if the other conditions of G7 are met? I may be overlooking something basic, but I don't see the utility in deleting aticles about notable subjects because the creator requests deletion. (In this specific instance it wasn't a request so much as it was acquiescence). Anyway, thanks for your time...I hope things are well with you. Tiderolls 05:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC) I considered posting this at WT:CSD but was sure the subject had, most likely been discussed there previously and I was too lazy to search the archives. Mea culpa.[reply]

The rule for speedy is that the article will be deleted in the subject shows no indication of importance of significance, which I think of as meaning that nobody in good faith who understood the purpose of Wikipedia would think there should be an article. Notability is more than this. Any subject that is notable will certainly be important or significant, while a great many things that may have some good-faith importance will still not be notable. When I first came here, I asked the same question you are asking, and suggested clarifying this by saying importance or significance or notability. The answer I was given by those of more experience is that it is better to avoid using the word "notable" entirely in defining A7, because it will inevitably lead to people asking an article be deleted because of no demonstration of notability, which is asking too much--only the community can decide notability, whether passively at WP:PROD or actively at AfD. Admins have views on this that are too diverse for them alone to be trusted, and notability can in many cases be pretty nebulous. But if something is totally insignificant, we pretty much all agree, and speedy A7 is therefore limited to the types of things we all normally agree on.
Personally, I think we should never have ever adopted the word "notability". It operationally has a meaning peculiar to us, what is called a "term of art", meaning only the question whether there should be a separate Wikipedia article; I think we should be deciding how much coverage to give the subjects that are of different grades of importance: varying from none at all, to a complex set of related articles. But people here like what might appear to be simple yes-no distinctions——but then they find themselves quarreling endlessly about everything anywhere near what they thought was a clear the borderline.
As for deletion by request of the author of the article, although Wikipedia contributions are licensed irrevocably, sometime people change their mind, and it is good practice to show understanding.. Very often though it makes sense, and we don't want to embarrass people by a public discussion. If the reason is not immediately obvious to me, I ignore such requests or ask for a reason. Sometimes it's because the author realizes the difficulty of writing an adequate article, and doesn't want an inadequate one to stand. Sometimes, the author is not convinced it will hold up at AfD, and would rather avoid a very public process about it--our AfD process is apt to make a mountain out a a molehill. (In this case, guessing from the author's talk p., I think both reasons apply.)
As for the article in question, he's an author of multiple books that have been published by a reputable publisher and are fairly widely held in libraries-- see WorldCat Identities; if they have substantial reviews, he meets WP:AUTHOR. However, depending on the extent of the reviews, the books seem rather routine, and that publisher, while often publishing books of very high quality and significance, also sometimes publishes works of quite minor importance. If someone brought it to AfD, there are others things I'd think better worth the effort of defending. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi DGG. I PRODed a 1-sentence, zero-ref article on a small shopping mall that, to me, appeared to meet our PROD requirements. You declined the PROD, writing "merge available--its at least a good redirect". But you didn't merge it or redirect it yourself.

The creator then deleted your merger suggestion, with the edit summary: "added a basic citation, but everyone knows that merge templates never involve discussions (that's why i actually created it in the first place".

Now, the creator has a point about merges -- If I'm to believe what I read on the internet: "There are currently around 16,000 articles tagged with merge tags. Only about 5% have any discussion and only about 1% of the tags actually link to the discussion. Merges routinely languish for years, with several unresolved merges over three years old."[9]

But what we've just done has been a complete circle (j...), and used up three editors' time, leaving us much where we were before it all started.

I believe that the mall is non-notable under our notability standards, and that deletion is the best course -- we don't, under our standards as I understand them, keep (or even merge or redirect) every mall in the world. The process has simply resulted in the expenditure of time, returning us to square one. How would you suggest I proceed, as I believe the article lacks notability sufficient to meet GNG, and though one might redirect or merge it and I would accept that I don't believe that the better course given its lack of notability?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Your concern about using up three editors' time gives me pause; have you stopped to consider how much editor time your recent Schools AfD spree caused? At a rough estimate, about 80 hours. 10 of them were mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll simply say: a) those AfDs brought about results (mostly deletes and redirects, that brought the articles in line with our policies), whereas this did not advance the ball at all -- which is a primary point I was making above; and b) your comment does nothing to aid my discourse with DGG on the above. We could of course have a longer conversation on the points you may wish to discuss--I would be happy to, but perhaps this is not the place -- this is a thread I opened about the above issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

epeefleche, I was about to write to you, that I agree one =hundred percent with you that these small and medium size shopping malls are not notable. About three years ago I made a major such to try to get a guideline where we would require 1 million square feet as a general guideline for notability of such falls, what amounted to la=super0regional or very large regional status (I'd guess the proper size cut off has gone up a little since then). =--and merge the others; usually not with the town, but articles like school district articles: shopping malls in Bergen country, or like groups of schools under single ownership: the chain of shopping malls . Consensus failed, as it usually does for such general compromises, because one or two people insisted they were all notable,, and one or two people insisted they were none of them notable at any size, and there was a good deal of squabbling among the others at what size to make the cutoff. But most mall AfDs since then have gone as the failed guideline suggested, at about one million square feet.

I consider them much worse than elementary schools, because of the opportunities for promotionalism, with the usual contents being long lists of all the secondary tenants.

What I urde=ge you to do here is to redirect. I will support you very strongly in any reasonable merge/redirect for articles in this subjetin any forum here , if you will let me know which ones are being questioned. In one of the AfDs I commented on yesterday, I see that your AfD was necessary, because having a separate article was strongly defended. Most of the time it will not be: that's why I changed your prods to suggested merges--that;s what you should have done all along.

But you raise the true issue, you will accept a merge, but you do not believe in it. I will call you on that as long and hard as I can,for what you are saying is disruptive both to established policy and my concept of Wikipedia. With respect to established policy Deletion Policy is unambiguous that any alternative to deletion is preferable to deletion, especially a merge or a redirect. This policy was established before I came here five years ago, and it is the basis of my own view, the extension and understanding of that, that the true issue is not keeping or deleting articles, but how much space to devote to subjects. And to the general policy idea behind Wikipedia, that we operate by consensus, again well established 45 years ago and the basis for extension and understanding of that, which is that consensus means compromise. Consensus is the only way a cooperative project not based on authority can operate, except for the development of less formal lines of power that amount in the end to authority, and which are just as destructive to true cooperation as elected or appointed formal authority. This is the real danger to Wikipedia Five years ago there were such informal power groups, and as a newcomer I was outside them. Though sheer survival, I am less totally outside them now, but I never wanted to be in them. I'm a teacher fundamentally, and I want less to have do my own work in my own was, but to show other people how to work constructively, with my own way as just one of the possible examples , and then encourage them to do so, developing their own way. The success of a teacher is not the students who become followers, but the students who become independent. (And, though a little off the topic, the informal groups of 5 years ago are being now superseded by additional formal organization, acting through the Foundation, and I think nothing more important to our long term survival than to resist them--even in the rare occasion they do something which happens to be right, for they destroy our initiative, without which our principles will not survive. It's not that I would rather be right than be President, but that if I became President, I know the temptations, and I can predict that I would no longer be right.

as for the schools AfDs, the ones that resulted in deletions were not in accord with our policies, in particular the WP:Deletion policy on alternatives to deletion, and the main question there , which I am considering, and probably Kudpung is also, is whether to make new merged articles and redirects, or challenge every one of the deletions at deletion review. I don't like spending time in the very arcane style of deletion review discussions, especially with my usual colleague Spartaz not very active (reliable not in that he usually agrees with me, but that between what he says and what I say, we can generally make the issue clear). The first choice will take another large amount of timer, the second, possibly more, though they may settle the issue after the first few of them. At the moment you have the advantage that I and Kudpung had ha=work to do which we think even more important than dealing with individual deleted articles, while you are clearly focussing on deletion.(for me, its building up the proper content in articles on organizations, and removing the long existent spam from them) For me, every thingI have to argue with you is something I'd rather not be doing. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your usual thoughtful response, DGG. Some thoughts ...

I'm glad we are in accord that these small/medium malls that lack indicia of notability are non-notable. Too bad that your proposed guideline failed -- it sounds reasonable. I think that generally the way to go -- if there is a consensus -- is to reflect it in a guideline. That smooths the process. Please alert me if you re-suggest your guideline, with the added support that you can no doubt muster by pointing to the last 3 years of experience.

If we can't get consensus for a guideline, as reasonable as the guideline might be, that forces us to the unpleasant task of considering alternatives. I recognize that some editors, in such circumstances, will encourage others to act BOLDly, and unilaterally take action such as a redirect or merge. I, personally, could save myself much time if I were to do so.

My hesitation is that -- especially where I know that there may well be a lack of consensus, or have reason to believe that may be the case -- I am hesitant to take action that lacks transparency, and that relies solely on my view, without even having another editor agree with my view, and results in the dramatic impact that a redirect (for example) has. I would be much more comfortable if we had a speedy-like process, in which a sysop (or even another editor) confirmed my view. But I'm not keen on unilateral action (by me, at least) that redirects an article where I have reason to believe that if it were listed at AfD the result might be delete, or keep, or merge. I care more about the action being taken being in accord with consensus than I do about the result being the one I propose -- and I'm happy to accept whatever the consensus is. My focus is driven by an effort to apply consensus-driven rules, or seek consensus where we appear to lack it.

To my mind, the main issue (the true issue, as you put it) is whether or not a stand-alone article should exist. AfD calls for articles to be nominated for deletion, but as the possible alternatives closes at AfD suggests, it often turns into a 2-step process: a) should there be a stand-alone article (a keep); and b) if not, should it be deleted, redirected, merged, or the like. My focus is on "a", and to my mind that is the most important issue.

To some, it appears to be very important whether the article that they agree should not be stand-alone should be redirected. To me, that's not the world-beater of issues, and the impact is far, far lesser than whether the article text is removed from mainspace. If we were to discuss it at length, I could no doubt build a strong case for suggesting that redirecting "Mall X" to "New York City" does little to inform our readers of anything of moment. But it does little harm, at the same time, and if editors feel strongly that every mall (no matter how small), and every nursery school (no matter how insignificant), and every person (no matter how non-notable) should be redirected to "New York City" and the like, my general view is that there is little harm in them engaging in that activity. Even if it adds -- IMHO -- little or nothing to the goals of the Project. But, as I said -- what you view as the main issue is one that IMHO has little impact, compared to the issue of whether the stand-alone article is excised. At the same time, I view it as of such low importance that I don't see much value in spending time arguing it either way, and I generally don't argue against a redirect these days ... it accomplishes 99% of what a delete does, w/regard to a non-notable article.

As to merges -- see my initial comments above. It appears to be, as the editor in that post indicated, a "catastrophically failing merge process". Plus, I don't see much benefit in merging content on a non-notable mall into another article. And I certainly question the merging of text that is not referenced at all, and which has been challenged, into another article -- that violates our core policy of verifiability.

As to the school AfDs, let me give some thought to my response before posting it. Both to allow your page to breathe, and to fashion a more thoughtful one. I'm interested in exploring ways in which we might improve/streamline the process, whether through additions to our notability guideline or otherwise.

Oh, lest I forget. The circumstances here. I (and you) believe the mall is non-notable. I prod it. You delete the prod, but tag it for a merge discussion. The article creator deletes your merge tag. ... Now, I still think it non-notable, and am in favor of deletion (still) though I would be fine w/redirect or merge (my main point being it does not meet our notability requirements, and thus should not be a stand-alone article). I agree with the creator that adding the delete tag likely -- per his comment and the above -- would simply add it to a 16,000-odd merge-suggested backlog, which seems unhelpful as those seem to languish (again, per the above) for 3+ years. What is your suggestion? Should I now, given my thinking, take it to AfD?

Best, as always. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have those streamlined ways already. If anything positive has come out of your AfD spree for schools, it is that where the 'redirect' closures far outnumber the 'delete', it serves once more to reinforce the long standing precedent that is followed by those who know about it. Non notable schools do not a toxic redirect make, and I am surprised that after ten years and 5,000 pages of policies guidelines, and essays, some information pages, such as those that state in an accepted banner "While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy", that these exceptions are still disputed. It is not logical that an AfD can be closed on a consensus that conflicts with policy, but it happens. Precedents, like the uncodified common law of Britain, should be respected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is a unsolved question, which is how to handle a disputed merge., both in case where there is a real objection to the merge, and in cases like these, where nobody can seriously object. I have repeated suggested changing Articles for Deletion into Articles for Discussion, where these would go, and a request for a merge would be as legitimate as a request for a deletion. It was passed once or twice, but not impleeted due to the difficulty of changing all the templates & my own failure to follow up promptly enough. It remains the best solution. The alternative I prefer is to bring them there anyway, either following the fundamental rule of IAR, which is another way of stating WP is NOT A BUREAUCRACY, or my preferred alternative of evading the need to use IAR in most cases, by using NOT BUREAUCRACY creatively, by asking for "merge, or alternatively, delete" instead of the more usual way, delete, with alternative of merging. The other is the traditional article talk page discussion. notified not as a policy RfC, which is always asking for anywahere from 3 to ∞ months of discussion usually getting nowhere, but a discussion on a particular group of merges--say, 5 shopping malls in New zealand. DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course the possibility of simply applying a merge template to any individual article. If the merge proposal has not received any response after a reasonable time (and many won't because such articles are mainly created by SPA who never return) the proposer can BRD and go ahead with his/her merge & redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, for the ones that are not defended. But this is a technique capable of great abuse, and I will not use it in a controversial situation--or one that might become controversial if attention were called to it. It's been the technique of those trying to destroy content about fiction: first merge the articles, then reduce the content in the merged articles into a single short paragraph, then turn it into a bare list, then remove the redirect on the basis it does not link to anything substantial. But I do not consider elementary school merges as controversial, and I do place such merge tags. I've tried it with shopping malls, but it seems they get watched.

More generally, it is more important that we not remove information someone may find of value, than that we keep out everything that is valueless. The only material necessary to remove is that which contributes negative value. The only valid objection against our becoming a directory is that it degrades the worth of what is important; my feeling is that if it avoids the negative effects of promotionalism and nonsense, it's much less of a priority than removing the pervading promotionalism and out of date information in the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

It may well be that someone has already had the courtesy of notifying you of this, but just in case. I've no idea what it is about, or whether it has significance, but I thought you ought to be aware of it.--Scott Mac 01:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) New link seems to be this. PamD 09:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it myself a little earlier this evening. KW seems to be doing his utmost to show himself in as bad a light as possible. It's perfectly consistent with his general behavior there that he didn't inform me. As far as I am concerned, I don't think what he said about me is significant enough to respond to. I took the same view as others did. If he holds a grudge, that's his lookout.

As for my position on NPA, it's been stated elsewhere: that people at a responsible public site behave like they do no longer amazes me; what continues to puzzle me is why the site tolerate them. Perhaps I have a responsibility to say this there, but people will see it here also. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That, I think, is the nub of the whole arbcom case. We've managed to get some sort of American free-speech, citizen's-rights, ethos, which tolerates children being childish, and really has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. Sadly, it is unlikely to change.--Scott Mac 04:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's better to avoid nationalities--to many Americans like myself the offensive style here is more like British pub speech, or more exactly, the constant back and forth of insult in British comedy sketches, rather than random use of occasional bad words that characterizes American adolescents. When people work together, deliberate and repeated use of what others in the group clearly consider insult always has the implication that the others do not matter. Whether everyone considers it insult is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've not made myself clear (and foolishly appeared to insult Americans). The style here is certainly British (and the whole "cunt is not sexist in Britain" meme is slight of hand, because although not generally used to refer to women in the UK, it is not a term anyone would use in any open social space - because it is clearly anti-social pubic language, only tolerated in certain - generally male - in-groups). No, my reference to the US was not that Americans are less civil, it is that there seems to me a Wikipedian reluctance to clamp down on certain types of speech. Go into most British public spaces and use the word "cunt", and you'll soon be asked to shut-up or leave. Use it in the hearing of customers in most workplaces - you'll be fired. And if in any particular sub-culture that's not the case, you won't be able to operate within any wider culture unless you learn how to adapt. Wikipedia is a wider culture. I may, inadvertently, happen to use a word that's acceptable "where I come from" - but once I am made aware of the wider cultural sensitivities, I must surely desist. The idea those involved here don't realise this is, quite frankly, not tenable.--Scott Mac 16:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Very eloquently put Scott. I concur with you both. Why the site tolerates it is an enigma to me too. But it does. That said, some of the worst insults do not need the use of expletives to be gravely insulting and demeaning - but in the current investigations, that aspect of PA and incivility seems to be unimportant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Interestingly the word "cunt" appears (final para) in today's Observer newspaper (a "respectable" paper, not a scandal sheet), albeit as a quote quoted from an article in Time Out and used to illustrate incivility woman to woman (and the original speaker was perhaps using it to emphasise her "working class" credentials?) While we wait for their inevitable degeneration, we should try to maintain an even temper, although that is not always possible or even desirable. After Helena Bonham Carter, the great-granddaughter of Herbert Asquith, complained that for all her advantages and beauty directors would not hire her because she was not "trendily working class", an exasperated Kathy Burke found the effort of keeping a civil tongue in her head too much to bear. "As a lifelong member of the non-pretty working classes," she told Time Out, "I would like to say to Helena Bonham Carter: shut up you stupid cunt." Not sure if this adds anything to any discussions, but thought it noteworthy when I saw it this morning. Perhaps it does tend to illustrate that it's not a misogynistically-offensive term over here (UK), just a stronger version of "stupid cow", ie rudeness applied exclusively to a female; male equivalent probably "Stupid prick". (But I spend most of my life in a quiet village looking after an aged Mother, so am no expert on what's said in pubs, on buses or in workplaces at present!) PamD 17:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The quote says it all. Burke "found the effort of keeping a civil tongue in her head too much to bear". Were User:K.Burke on Wikipedia, she would, by definition, have breached WP:CIVIL - can could be blocked. Now she might argue that User:Posh-Helena had bated her, but would we buy it?--Scott Mac 18:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was at first surprised at our emphasis on the wording: I now appreciate it as a good opportunity for discussing bad language. I agree with Scott that the way "cunt" is used in the quote above shows that the use is normally considered offensive in the UK, and that this was newsworthy as an exceptionally crude statement. Its implication depends on the circumstances--it can be used in a positive sense between lovers. But even if the word were uniformly used in the UK as a strong compliment, even among strangers or people working together in offices, referring perhaps to the excellence of women as exemplified by their sexuality, and if nobody at all in the UK, even those of a previous generation, were ever offended, it still is offensive here, because we are not writing for a UK readership only, and it is obviously perceived by many people here as a crude insult. Even were all women uniformly in the English-speaking world to think it a friendly greeting, if any substantial number of men nonetheless considered it an insult to women, it would be offensive. All of these discussions about the intrinsic nature of this word or other words is entirely irrelevant to NPA. If words are perceived by at least some reasonable people here as offensive, that is what matters. I'm Jewish. If I'm called Jewish, I normally consider it a neutral descriptor, or sometimes a word of praise. If it's used to me as an insult, it's insulting because it considers my ethnicity a fit term to be used

Kudpung refers to insult expressed in polite terms. We need to recognize this as improper also--NPA means no personal attacks, not merely no personal attacks using conventional words of insult. When terms normally considered insulting are used, it aggravates the situation; when terms often used to indicate group membership are so used, it aggravates it further. It not the intrinsic use of any particular word that is crucial to NPA--it just makes NPA easier to prove.

There's even more serious aspect: when experienced people in a group can get away with behavior newcomers can not, it implies an hierarchy, a non-welcoming attitude. a sense of exclusiveness. It's a collective version of OWNERSHIP: the longer you're here, the more you own the encyclopedia. If we do welcome newcomers, the longer a person is here, the great should be their politeness. It's the same as an expert trying for OWNership of an article: for a true expert, their edits will prove it. If those of longer standing have the ability to determine our practice, it will be because their experience enables them to best explain it. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the missing link here is not so much NPA as "don't needlessly disrupt Wikipedia". What is a personal attack may very well depend on the intention of the writer, and his expectation of how the recipient will understand it. Thus, if we assume good faith, lots of things can be excused as having "friendly" intention, or having been misunderstood. However, it is not enough to have good intention - one also needs not to use language that may predictably give the impression of an intent to give offence (even if none is intended). To give a concrete example: a number of years ago a user was accused of a racist post (I can't remember the details). Of course there was uproar. The user then protested he had no racist intent, and indeed was himself black (sorry if that's the wrong term). The defence was accepted. However, in a virtual community no one knows you are black - so don't use the language that requires that knowledge for context, because it is likely to be misunderstood by some and thus cause disruption. Same here: how one normally uses "cunt" is immaterial, that one doesn't intend a personal attack is good, but also insufficient. If you know that a form of words is likely to be seen as uncivil - just don't use it. We are trying to communicate in a multi-cultural, non-visual community. Sure, people should assume good faith, but you should not (as far as you are able) require them to understand your ethnicity, gender, culture, local linguistic practice, religion, or sexuality in order to understand your words. You should attempt (as you are able) to use language that transcends that - ans so deliberately using language that doesn't is disruption (or even trolling).--Scott Mac 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the saddest aspects gained by a reputation of of being unpleasant is that it has deterred some people from wanting to submit articles for promotion to quality status. It's already driven most people away from wanting to help the project through promotion to the use of a set of tools. This is clearly not conducive to a healthy collaboration and growth of the project. In other words, it's disruptive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't needlessly disrupt Wikipedia" can apply to a great many things. In a sense, it's the basis of all offenses--contributing or commenting in such a way as to make trouble for people. It includes persistently submitting unacceptable articles, or persistent attempts to remove acceptable ones. Or copyvio, edit-warrring, or promotionalism--especially non commercial promotion of a cause. All of these take effort to deal with, and interfere with work directed to building the encyclopedia.

Anything can upset people, especially if it's connected with rejecting their work. There is no intervention, however well meant and however careful, that is truly safe--I've had people upset with approaches that essentially amount to , "let me help you make a better article"--especially with autobio, where people tend to think they have written the obviously perfect article. Whatever people take offense with, I apologize for, and apology helps, if perceived as sincere, and if it's more than "I'm sorry it had a bad effect on you" but rather along the lines of "I made an error, and I will fix it."

But the best first line towards improvement is avoiding certain comments that are known to be especially dangerous.These are the expected--any reference to age, or race, or nationality, or sex, or religion; or using words some people thing are taboo. Reflections on people's education are tricky--much more than the others, they may be an actual problem, and, in this encyclopedia, they can be connected sometimes with age and first-language; I've learned to avoid these also. But the basic rule remains, that in a very public setting, where you are interacting with a range of individuals of unknown identity and background, with extremely variable preferences and expectations for formality, and a wide range of expectations, it is necessary to be extremely careful how you say and do things. It might sound like this is asking a lot: but we're all trained in language use and interpersonal interactions from infancy, and even children are aware of the concept of hurting other people's feelings.

(There are some people who unfortunately are not, and may indefinitely require guidance; one special aspect is that people with these difficulties are often attracted to our relatively impersonal setting; though we say WP is not therapy, it can be, or at least can be a safe environment--but just as in society generally, it is very difficult to encourage these individuals while also protecting the others, and we therefore will always need mechanisms of isolation. But never punishment--having social difficulties is not anyone's fault in a moral sense (or at least so I like to say, perhaps excusing those of my own). But we are justified in asking those who can control themselves to do so, and educating those who for whatever reason have not learned the expected standard——and gently removing the others.

The excuse of intellectual brilliance does not apply here: this is a communal setting, though some people may not at first realize that. Even the best of contributors, who can not or will not avoid offending other contributors will need to find a setting where they can work without doing harm. Even those who are most readily to hurt others can very readily take offense themselves——AN/I or RfC/U are good places to observe this; I rather doubt many of those who say it does not matter to them, and that this should be an environment where everyone is expected to be tough and impervious, both taking and giving. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Im confused. Accusation of rudeness may or may not be justified. Dont care. How did the "c" word come up? None of the linked diffs include it? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the word came up because the use of it has been a prominent example in the manifold recent discussions. To say we should not insult other people by using the word does not mean we should avoid using it frankly when the word itself (or the subject) is the matter being discussed. Accusations of unjustified rudeness are rather common; I said I sometimes receive some after I've deleted an article, no matter what I've actually said. I would never support a rule that we act too strongly on even true rudeness if it's sporadic, but we should act firmly and consistently when it becomes habitual or defiant. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persistently persistent

First, my appreciation for your consideration of my recent ANI. That being said, User:Snowded continues to assert his/her intent to delete any 'POV Section Tag" not in compliance with his/her, IMHO, misunderstanding and/or purposeful misrepresentation of WP:POLICY on both POV tagging and WP:NPOV policy. As I would like to renew the talk page discussion towards resolution aided by the hopefully increased breadth of editorial consideration which the POV tag is designed to foster, your indulgence in further clarifying your determination at your earliest convenience is solicited. I have notified User:Snowded of this request. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not normally mediate content disputes, but I will take a look at the article talk page & give an opinion. However,as I said at AN/I, there is no reason to edit war about a tag. Just make your case there for what the contents of the article should be. Then I'll look at what you've said there. DGG ( talk ) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not normally mediate content disputes,...

If I might suggest, this is less a "content dispute" than it is a "presentation dispute" per rather clear WP:NPOV guidance.

Just make your case there for what the contents of the article should be.

As you will, no doubt, quickly discern, that was precisely what I did when I initially established the section to discuss (not dispute) the content in question. As, IMHO, no editor would address the specifics of my POV objection (as you will also, hopefully, discern), upon my elevation of the discussion to formal dispute status, I repeated my objection and rationale to, again, solicit comments specific to my POV objection. As of yet, that objection and its foundation in the SPECIFIC language of WP:NPOV has yet to be addressed...and suppression and diversion rather than discussion appears to be the only reponse thus far. That, hopefully, will be rectified by an infusion of fresh editorial consideration/opinion the POV tag is designed to foster. Thanks again for your time and consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Courtesy Notification

As a courtesy notification for your consideration, your name has been referenced by me in a recent post to User:Atama. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thank you for electing to contribute your observations to the article talk page. I intend to fashion a rather in depth and carefully considered response to your observations as I believe it will be productive. However, due to time limitations and a personal desire to step back from this issue for a break and some reflective consideration, I may not post my response before the blackout. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI and consideration, I have replied to your observations posted to one of the "Swiftboating" RfCs. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGG stack

I've closed the AfD and redirected the article to The 4-Hour Body. You commented that there's a possibility for a content merge, feel free to go ahead now. Der yck C. 22:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look after the blackout. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed compromise for Academy of Achievement

Hi DGG, I wanted to see if I could draw your attention back to the Academy of Achievement Talk page once more. I appreciate your removal of the EduCap section, although Ebikeguy disagreed, and I've offered up a possible solution. The short version is I've offered up a new version of the EduCap section that I think would work as a subsection of the new Background section I had proposed in late December. My hope is to restart discussion over there, and would like to have you involved. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

since Wikipedia is about to be made inaccessible for 24 hours starting at 5:00 GMT 18 January, this will have to wait till we can resume. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet service

I know you said back in December you were trying to get your Internet service worked out so you could restore User:Alden Loveshade/Anaphora Literary Press. Any luck with that? Alden Loveshade (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: new user warning test results available

Hi WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion

I'm trying to get the above project active again. If you like to participate, please add you name to the project page. Mad Man American (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commented there: a worthy project, but part of the difficult is that there are so many aspects to it. And I would strongly prefer if we got as far a way as possible from the word "deletion". We need to think of the process as positive: whether or not to include content, and how to arrange it. DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I was thinking about this myself this morning, not knowing a prior project existed. I'm definitely with DGG on the naming issue--the overuse of the whole "deletionist vs. inclusionist" paradigm was half the problem in the recent kerfuffle. But I can see a lot of good work for a project like that to do. For example, I recently went through a very narrow category of primary schools in one county in the UK, and redirected all of those that don't meet GNG, per the common outcome for primary schools. That's not deletion (though some people think it is), but it's something that would likely fall under the scope of such a project. Similar things would be taking a serious look at television episodes, individual songs, etc. Much of that information would be (or, in some cases, already is) better focused in collective articles, and likely to be better maintained. One thing that might be worth considering are some issues being raised at WP:VPP#Proposal regarding Article Rescue Squad--specifically, the proposal that ARS have a hierarchy to help keep its members in line. I think it would be good if any such project focused on merging/deleting would also work hard to slap down any member that got over-anxious. It would also be for it to make sure that, as a whole, the group never become too active. One concern that is regularly raised is at ANI is when someone nominates dozens of the same type of article simultaneously, meaning that good faith contributors don't have enough time to attend to all of the issues. It would be bad if such a project suddenly created a really significant increase in the total number of AfDs (even though I think that this encyclopedia could stand a good house cleaning). Lastly, it seems like it would be useful for them to be involved in setting/refining notability guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Lading

The copyright violation is clearly seen in the book under the " 5. EDI systems and electronic bills of lading" heading. The sentence, "The use of electronic communication in international commercial transactions has received considerable attention in recent years. The term ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE is commonly used to designate systems of computer to computer exchange of information in predetermined formats." is directly lifted from the book. I am reinstating the tag, please do not remove it. Gsingh (talk)

thanks for the specification, which you should have given in the first place. . The criterion for G12 is "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving" Do you assert that? Anyway, someone else seems to have deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought it was clear but will be more specific next time. Many parts of the article were copied from different sources, if someone is willing to rephrase the entire article it is still available for them. Gsingh (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CSD. G12 is not supposed to be used for close paraphrasing, or complex cases, but rather they should be listed on WP:copyright problems. Added factors involved here is that one the one hand the material needs more than rephrasing, but considerable reorganization; on the other hand the subject is quite important. This set of added factors usually is what induces me to personally rewrite the article, or at least reduce it to a meaningful stub. (I will do this even when not in my field but where I have sufficient understanding to do a basic article). Tonight, unfortunately, I did not have time tonight to do it. The virtue of copyright problems is that it provides the necessary time to at least stubbify. But you did absolutely right to identify the problem; writing an article in such a pastiche is quite wrong, but beginners often do it. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No consensus to close Template:Rescue as delete"

I noticed here, you claimed there was no consensus for Template:Rescue to be deleted. Of the 80-90 editors, more than twenty more editors said delete than keep...so at least 60% of them said delete. How is that not a consensus, if I may ask? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I were counting votes, i would never decide an xfd on that basis. And in any case it's consensus of the policy based opinion, and you probably know my opinion on that one. Many of the votes for delete were for those who want to increase the already existing bias towards deletion by making it harder to attract people to rescue articles, and all such votes were in blatant contradiction to deletion policy that deletion is the last resort. Most of the other votes for delete were on the basis that there had been a few scattered cases of misuse for canvassing resulting in the keep of articles that should not have been kept, and to consider that more significant than the otherwise improper deletion of many articles is a misjudgment. I regret that I had not gotten involved in the tfd earlier, but I cannot watch everywhere, and, as usual, nobody had canvassed me--and I do not watchlist that page. I cannot quite see the point of continuing the discussion here: my support of this project is consistent and long-standing. My view lost, rightly or wrongly, so why should the winning side try to squelch the remaining opposition? (and that certainly seems to be what they are trying to do to Dream Focus; are you hoping I too can be led into saying something blockable--it's a vain hope--I never yet have come near that.) It's for the losers to appeal if they wish; and I normally wait for someone else to decide to carry on an appeal. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why would I want you blocked? The only thing I had a problem with is that you said that something with 60% support for deletion should have been kept (and that you call it "few scattered"; of the dozen or so times I've seen the template used, all were used poorly). I disagree with you that the rescue template's deletion was motivated solely because people want to delete articles, or that that's necessarily a 100% bad thing. And I do wish you'd divorce DF's block from his inclusionism...the people who want him blocked (me included, though only for the one week) want him blocked because he repeatedly says snarky things, not because he's an inclusionist Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well , why would anyone have wanted Dream focus blocked either, except they didn't agree with him, and he expressed himself a little unreasonably, in what I consider understandable annoyance. It is appropriate to extend tolerance to people who have just lost debates; a certain amount of what you called snarkiness is understandable. (For example, people sometimes lose their temper their article gets justly deleted, but why should it bother us? What would blocking them accomplish besides make them even angrier?) I know the block was done by a good person, for what he thought was the good motive of preventing even more inappropriate action, but it was nonetheless an error. As for deletion, I do not know if you are carelessly or deliberately misreading me, but I did not say that the motivation was solely excessive deletionism; I said it was what seemed to motivate "many" of the people , and I stand by that.It is perfectly OK to want to delete articles--at least I sure hope it is, because I have deleted over 10,000 of them myself, mostly in speedy but also in prods and AfDs--my estimate is that this is 5 or 10 tines what I've been able to rescue. There is a lot of junk, and anyone who says otherwise is over-reacting to the deletionists. The basic reason for deleting something is that including it would be harmful to the standing of Wikipedia. Advertising is harmful. BLP abuse is harmful. Nonsense is harmful. Utter non-notable things are harmful. Marginally notable things may not be ideal, but they are not harmful. At the least, efforts spent in deleting the marginally notable are efforts better spent in improving articles: the yield isn't worth it. And, therefore, the established deletion policy is when it doubt, include, which is reasonable considering the wide range of people's interests, and feasible in the era of NOT PAPER. I answer you on the basis I often will answer here, to convince those who will come and see it. Experience has shown me its the most effective contribution I can make, to explain things to people so they can construct good arguments. I'm sure we will find many places to continue this , elsewhere. But I thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my feelings about these actions. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across this conversation when I came to this page for another purpose. My comment is that I think that you have done an excellent job describing your opinion on this matter, DGG, and my philosophy on this is very close to yours. Purplebackpack, you are a very good contributor here, and you would be even better if you kept the drama to a minimum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...efforts spent in deleting the marginally notable are efforts better spent in improving articles..." Well said. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Adoption and Language Development" on my talk page

Hello David,

I am helping a new user who is interested in library matters. I mentioned you on my talk page, and suggested that she may want to ask you a question of two. I just wanted to give you a heads up, and thanks for all that you do here. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special Collections Libraries

Hi DGG,

Thank you so much for the advice. As a future librarian I really enjoy hearing from current librarians. I would love to expand into a separate article just on University of Arizona libraries. I will work on the outside research. Do you think that publications such as Arizona Newspapers could work? Also, I work at the libraries. Is it looked down upon to edit or make an article about the place that you personally work at? Another idea I had was editing the Archive page. I was especially interested in the fact that it links to List of film archives and was thinking about trying to make a list for each of the types of archives listed in the article such as corporate, church, non-proft, etc. Again, thank you for the help and I'm excited to contribute to this field. Semccraw (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disclose any conflict of interest that you may have, make neutral improvement of the encyclopedia your highest priority, and defer to the judgment of disinterested editors. If you follow that guidance, you can work on topics related to your employment. I think that you could work to improve our article on the Center for Creative Photography on your campus. As an Ansel Adams buff, I would love to see that article expanded. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business articles

I appreciate your call for "more text" on business articles - I have to say that this is not my "primary topic", and I have a long backlog already of articles to write on other things..

I have some issues with the style of a lot of the business articles. for example Business requirements - I am not complaining that it is badly written - but it is almost completely inaccessible to the non-expert, unreferenced - and frankly - I am not convinced it it not WP:OR (even if it is good "OR"), or a personal viewpoint essay. The term "business requirements" is clearly and obviously a term that turns up often in business related discussions - however I don't see that the article presents any information that it is more than a "two word pair" or that it has a defined meaning worthy of an encyclopedia, or that the term is not self explanatory.

I will propose this article for deletion discussion - please comment.Mddkpp (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not adequately accessible, there is certainly a good case for improvement. If something is a term that frequently crops up in discussions, and the article is too technical for understanding, then it certainly is a very good subject for improving. If what we did with inadequate articles was delete them, then the encyclopedia would never have developed--almost all articles were pretty low quality when they got started. If sources are available, then an article is not OR, or need not be--it is considered acceptable in technical articles to use numerical examples: its a way of writing prose. Business is a poorly covered area here, and you seem determined to make it yet worse. To do this in a field which is not your primary subject, and where you admit that you do not understand the articles, is one of the most unproductive things a person could do here. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Real Life Barnstar
	Thank you for all your positive comments, constructive criticism, and leadership at WP:NYC this weekend. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding credible claim

Does it not qualify that a credible claim has been asserted in stating the article subject had a notable song written about them? [10] My76Strat (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've ever said so, but since you want to give it a chance, I'll undelete it. I suggest you redirect and merge to the article about the performer, but otherwise, I'll send it to AfD for the community to decide DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that gesture of good faith. I have my doubts that the article will meet notability guidelines but believe it met an initial obligation to assert a credible claim. I think normal editing provides the best recourse from here. Again, thanks. My76Strat (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hindawi etc.

Hi DGG, I was involved in the Hindawi discussion on RS/I. Now user:HandThatGives has closed the discussion even at ANI, just after my delivery speech as a newly appointed TM guru by Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. My speech lasted for less than three hours.

Can I ask you: do you think this is something for ArbCom?

Now I feel helpless and that people can do whatever they want on Wikipedia. Granateple (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never known anybody go to arb com and come out the better for it. . DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. I have now made a RFAR. It can't hurt. When they made me a part of the TM movement, I had a good laughter, but it was also an unpleasant experience. If you are interested in my RFAR, it is called Two strange incidents. Granateple (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles has given you some good advice there; if you didn't want to take mine, perhaps you will take his. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On one user talk page you wrote that the closure statement was much too dogmatic, and “If you consider the subject a matter of arb enforcement, it should be done there.”

The Greek philosophers held slaves, and the thought that everyone has the same worth (equal before God) came to Western Civilization with Christianity.

I don’t thrive in an environment without Law. I leave now.

The mythology of “consensus” and “there is no cabal” impresses me. It reminds me of how your class society manages to keep status quo and prevent redistribution of wealth: the american dream is for everyone. The only difference is that the Wikipedia cause is good. Of cource it is.

PS I have nothing against you and you got my last word. Maybe because you were the only who said something. Granateple (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Women in development#Requested move 2

It seems difficult to get closure on this question. Since you contributed to the discussion on the first move proposal, perhaps you have thoughts on the second proposal. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PVN Acharya

DGG:

Please heed you own advice:

Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors

Sorry to be blunt, but your comments are embarrasingly (to you) patronizing and you keep referring to "Irreversible" when it's "Irreparable." They may be one in the same to you but, I don't think you know all of the details of this area of science.

As far as his two books, please refer to the US Copyright website. My question to you is: what do you stand to gain by trolling about wikipedia and advocating the deletion of legitimate contributions by for example, a Indian Born HINDU scientist? We need to know what exactly you're intentions are. We're the ones getting tappped, btw.(RaghuVAcharya (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

OK, I'm referring this to a community decision at AfD in a day or two. I've commented again on your talk p., and I already did urge you not to make this personal DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Many thanks! Giant Snowman 20:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Online Ambassador, Spring 2012

Hi, DGG! As you may know, the Wikipedia Education Program has instilled a new set of standards that courses must meet to officially join the program for the semester. As you can see, one of the requirements is that at least one ambassador or professor is a Wikipedian, as this should give students more access to helpful information about contributing to Wikipedia and creating good content. You are listed on the Online Ambassador page; are you still interested in remaining active this semester? Some of these classes will have to remove themselves from the program should they fail to meet these standards, but we would like to ensure that new students are receiving proper support during the editing process. Please let me know if you are still interested in mentoring these students this semester and/or visit the Online Ambassador talk page to select a course that still needs an Online Ambassador. Thank you! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Ambassador in New Haven

Dear David,

My name is Stefania and we med at the NY Wikipedia Day last month. I following up on our conversation about finding a Campus Ambassador for my Cognitive Psychology class at University of New Haven and, as we agreed, I contacted Maximilian Klein who is | trying to find an Ambassador in my area. However, there seems to be the possibility that nobody is available, in which case I would kindly ask you if you (or somebody from NY) could come to my class one day and give a short talk. I would really appreciate your help, and I hope your are still available.

Thanks for your time, I hope to hear from you soon.

Best, Stefania S.mereu (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gouds

HI DGG, I noticed that you have just restored a lot of entries to List of Gouds in the belief that most of them have suitable refs in the linked articles. Are you sure about that? Could you perhaps give me a few examples? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see my note on your user talk p. Anything to do with Indian caste articles needs discussion, not unilateral action. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. There is no note on my user talk page. Have you mixed me up with someone else? I spend hours sorting out these Indian "List of x caste" articles and cannot recall any respected contributor in that sphere querying any entry that I have removed. Obviously, IPs and the like sometimes do. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worked out what has gone on. You dropped a note on the talk page of Pernoctator, who appears to have been proposing deletion of various lists. I have certainly emptied some in my time but I cannot recall ever asking for deletion. I would be surprised, but also pleased, if you do find any errors in my removals. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies--I had seen you were doing some removals, and I was going to get around to sending you a note also. I do not have the sources or language knowledge to work on these further. The best way to proceed on this is to get consensus somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem right, sorry. Plenty of people involved in the India project know what has been happening. Also, you appear not to have seen, for example, Talk:List of Ror. I have not proposed these lists for deletion as there must surely be some valid content out there even if not among the names that were removed. However, we cannot have them populated with apparently unverifiable content, and certainly not when the people concerned are still alive. Caste is controversial and is a statement of ethnicity. Does this make sense? - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was also this discussion at WT:INB recently, although specifically geared towards BLPs. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of some controversy over this, but have not followed it in detail. But I see the extent of the problem. Let me think about it. The project talk p. makes evident another layer of complexity, which is whether it should be included in the article even if there is good sourcing. There are several incompatible positions. One is that this is as essential part of a person's background as the city and year they were born, and something nobody should rationally be ashamed of (unlike, say, a criminal conviction, which was the basic consideration present in adopting the BLP Policy of DO NO HARM.) The opposite is that in practice in India listing caste can still lead to discrimination, and therefore should be avoided unless self-affirmed, or unless the person is so famous that it is generally discussed, and the mention in Wikipedia can do no harm. This has previously come up elsewhere, principally though not exclusively over the use of my own ethnic category, Jewish. I have seen both views presented here, even though there is now almost nowhere any threat of persecution. Yet there has been within my own lifetime, and the anti-semites did use listings in encyclopedias and directories as one way to ferret out whom they wished to murder. And proud though I am of it and other aspects of my identity, I probably would want to hide it if it subjected me to danger. I suggest you get wider consensus than just the Project; it is very possible that you will have it. I always follow the consensus even when I disagree with it. (I did disagree with the consensus on the ethnic-occupation cross category guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality; and while I regret thedecision, I would not want to raise the issue

That's fine. Have a think, although I do not believe that there is any controversy at all if you exclude SPAs and drive-by IPs. In the interval, although I agree that the articles should not be deleted (and this is where I believe your recent involvement originated), I do hold the opinion that you should revert those reinstatements of content where they apply to articles concerning ethnic/caste origin. Those articles get out of control very quickly. We have a clear situation that we can re-revert to, ie: yours. And there is very clear evidence that where I have been involved there has been a more than reasonable degree of work before removal of the entries. It is up to you whether you bother or not, but if you do then you will see a lot of the individually linked articles had edits from me during the process of fixing the lists - I did more than a little background stuff. FWIW, regarding the Jewish issue, that is in fact one of the primary markers and it has been raised by numerous people in connection with this caste issue. Those people include face-to-face conversations at the last Wikimeet that I attended (worthless in itself because not written down, but most were experienced admins etc). WT:INB is a suitable venue for what is a complex and "localised" issue but if you decide that you would prefer to see it discussed at more general venue then that is fine by me. What I want to avoid for now is a situation where the cruft reappears, the BLP vios (my viewpoint) resurface, and yet more is added. Not many people patrol these things and the idea of having to start over is completely dis-spiriting. If the preceding sounds rude or whatever then I apologise as that is not my intent. I have had a rather bad day of non-consensus/socks/meats/legal threats/edit warring/blah-blah and will be shortly heading for slumberland! - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, and as a complete aside, you mention that there is "now almost nowhere any threat of persecution" re: Jewish people. I suppose that depends upon the definition of "persecution" but, for example, in my bit of the UK the extent of anti-semite attacks etc is rising rapidly and was never what I would describe as "low" in the first place. It is well-documented and sometimes very distressing even to non-Jews such as myself, and it is clearly evidenced on the streets around where I live. I am not Jewish but this is the area of my birth and where I have lived for most of my life, so I know it well & have many Jewish friends etc right back to my childhood. I have also known plenty who were in the camps, although I am a child of the 60s. If this is how things prevail in Manchester then I dread to think how it is in more heated places. Similarly, I have neighbours who are of Pakistani Muslim and Indian Hindu origin, but share the same last name: you do not want to read how they react to each other. Suffice to say, the police are quite regular visitors. I should move house, but that will not fix the real problem; it will merely remove me from it to some degree or another. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there have been attacks on synagogues this year in NYC. As you say, racism is endemic everywhere and the last few years of politics and economics has not discouraged it. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion here and this thread is referred to therein. I hope that this is acceptable to you. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

Hi DGG, I am aware of the rules about Prod. Could you let me know which article you are referring to? I'm not aware that I have replaced a prod anytime recently, and certainly not deliberately. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to show me where the prod was contested? I don't see it in the article's edit history. You declined the speedy deletion proposal, but that's not the same as declining a Prod. As far as I am aware, the article has only been proded once. Sparthorse (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are perfectly correct.My apologies. Just treat it as a notice that I declined the prod. In practice, if I decline a speedy saying "it might even amount to notability", I'm rather likely to contest the prod also. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infodynamics

Hi there, I have created more links and included more references to help in establishing the term. I have lectured on the topic at UCLA and agree with the content that is currently written on the page. Please let me know what you think. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.150.187 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author advertising

Author Phil Revell, who admits (or claims) that he is User:Shropshire Lad and has engaged me on four articles and my talk page in which he did some completely self-serving editing. The articles are Richard More (Mayflower passenger), Katherine More, Jacob Blakeway, Samuel More. These articles are all inter-related in that they involved a scandal in England which eventually resulted in the four children of Katherine and Samuel (or as Samuel claimed) Jacob Blakeway being secretly put on the first Mayflower voyage and brought to America as indentured servants.

Mr. Revell has announced on the talk page of Katherine More http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More where he originally stated who he was and added advertising information about his book and his internet website. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katherine_More&diff=475632578&oldid=451678526 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katherine_More&diff=452205726&oldid=451678526 which I removed as Wiki Spam - On the Richard More article he cited in references in such a way that they went DIRECTLY to the page of his book He does not deny it and thinks it is not a violation since he claims he is the author (which makes no difference because legally Wikipedia has no legal contract with him to use his copyrighted page viewed on wiki. This Copyright violation, he refused to acknowledge since he is the author and states therefore that he cannot violate his own copyright. I tried to explain that we have no way to prove that ShrophsireLad is Phil Revell and even so, it is not permitted on Wikipedia. He states he read the guideline and does not agree.

I forgot to mention that although he blanked his talk page, he has previously identifed himself only as a teacher and then went on to change it to say he was an author. I will not bother you with the diffs and it is probably not that important. He also blanked his User page recently during this controversy.

His most recent answer to me is that he will do as he pleases and states I have cite no guidelines which I have at least four times.

Would you please enlighten him. He remarks are identical on the article talk pages - he cut and pasted them. So, too are my remarks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More but on my talk page I actually show him some of the diffs to prove to him something he denies, putting advertising on the talk page. Now that I have proven it, he maintains it is perfetly proper. Please look at one article talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More and then my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mugginsx bottom section to get full picture of his statement and intentions.

Thank you for any help you are willing to give. If you are too busy, I will thank you anyway and do my best to cope with him.

first, one can give a reference link directly to the page of a book, if the book is a RS. That it is copyright protected is irrelevant. Even if it were paywalled, it's permissible. Links are not copyright violations, and this has been clear since the early days of the internet. (What is a copyright violation in linking is linking to someone else's page in such a way that it appears to be your own). We can also give an additional External Link section link to a copyright site, if it's a free site. There is as far as I can tell no violation of our copyright policy. The place to pursue it is the WP:Copyright questions noticeboard, but I do not see it as the point, unless he has done extensive quotation or Close paraphrase, in which case he would need to give a formal license.
As for advertising his book, as an EL or otherwise. He can certainly give a sentence & his link on his talk p. Many of us link to our own work. What he cannot do by our EL policy, is add an EL to his own work to the article, as a fiction based on the person's bio--which would otherwise be suitable He can propose it on the talk p., and then someone else should add it , if supported by consensus. Giving it on the talk p. as a proposal for the article is not advertising, if not done excessively. Adding it without consensus to the article probably is. Adding it as much as he has been doing certainly is. The place to pursue this aspect of the issue is the WP:COIN, Conflict of interest noticeboard.

But his book A spurious brood is fiction, and published as such and admitted to be such. He claims in the talk that it is based on fact, but that of course does not make it a RS. He says he has created a website and book, The Mayflower Children, giving the actual historical facts in support of the book. But that does not make it a RS either, as the book is self-published. Obviously neither the book nor the site can be used as a source for information. He seems to have used the book as a source, and that is not permitted. If he wishes to use it, he must list it on the talk p., and see if there will be consensus to add it. Myself, for a self-published book. I would want to see reliable reviews accepting the information as reliable. If consensus cannot be obtained, the place to discuss it further is the Reliable sources noticeboard. This is the most critical problem, & I will comment on it

Incidentally, please do not refer people complaining of actions here or needing a fuller explanation to Jimmy's talk page--it's an unfair burden, and best saved for major matters involving fundamental policy, where his opinion is desired. (which in any case is well-informed and very highly influential opinion, not a decisive settlement of an issue) . Refer them to the appropriate forum here. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so and I apologize. I did inititally refer him to the copyright guidelines but he refused to acknowledge them stating since he was the copyright holder there could be no copyright violation. I know that not to be true from my past career in the law, though I did not state that.

He has also taking out a large chunck on my material in Jacob Blakeway article which he is entitled to do BUT he has put HIS references in place of those of the PhD who published them first. To me, Dr. Donald F. Harris (from which Revell got his information is just as good a reference but everytime he makes an edit, he replaces the existing reference with his. He also reinserted and continues to advertises his FICTIONAL BOOK with is a sexualized story about the affair and he admits has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article on all four article pages I have listed. Please see his latest edit history here just done as you can see by the time on the edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Blakeway&diff=475783823&oldid=475627200 Mugginsx (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message is above

Your message is above. I do not know how to send you a message to your own page. Sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

ShropshireLad has still NOT removed any of his self-published e-book as references on any of the aforementioned articles. In addition, he did not remove his listing of his fictional book Spurious Brood from the Books Section he created. I did. Should I remove the references in the article or wait? Mugginsx (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear DGG,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

of course I am willing to do it, and you may use my wikiname and my real name however you please, though if others are not giving their name likewise, I am sure you will do so in such a way as not to give my comments any greater implied emphasis. I should like to speak with you first about your project in general, and will email you. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam and Diane nominated for deletion

I now that you favor fiction for extended coverages, especially during deletion discussions I created. In this case, I have created an article of the fictional couple of Cheers, and my work has been nominated as AFD. I wonder if it violates WP:5P, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:N. Also, I wonder if this article is well-sourced without original research and synthesis. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couples are a real problem, unless you have excellent sources specifically referring to them as such, but I'll see what I can do. If I were working in this field, what I would work on is, first, revising the existing plot summaries to be both compact and informative, and, considerably harder, examining closely the academic and popular literature that is beginning to get published about these shows. It's easier to find a good source, and then use it wherever it fits, than to look for sources on something very specific, because of the way the sources are spread out and difficult to find. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

typo

Hi DGG - It looks like you are on: I was moving William Warren Bartley to W.W. Bartley, III - how he was more commonly known - and I accidentally made a typo. I made it W.W, Bartley, III (with a comma after the 2nd W instead of a period). I did a subsequent move to the correct W.W. Bartley, III so that is now correct, but I think the incorrect W.W, should be deleted. Thanks - let me know if I am being incomprehensible at this late hour! Best wishes Tvoz/talk 08:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done. In the future, all you need to do is to just place a {{db-r3}} tag on redirect errors like this. (for implausible typos) DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fast! Of course - I forgot about the tag. Thanks! Cheers Tvoz/talk 08:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cygnis insignis

I have checked several new pages created by this editor and think that it might be appropriate to grant autopatrolled rights. If you agree, you can perhaps take care of this? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see my note on his talk p. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, the Lord hates a coward." (Mamet) 15:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I have sent a message to User talk:Shropshire Lad because of his disruptive editing today and how it is being done. He has made a particular offensive remark at the end of Katherine More talk page which I just found at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More . I see no reason to comment sarcastically about a non-Wiki editor, especially one who has helped him in the past.Mugginsx (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to make this personal. Talk about the edits. Try not to mention any specific editor at all, even in response to a comment that does mention one. When a conflict becomes personal, the normal community reaction is to give some degree of blame to everyone. That's my way personally, as well; if I need to warn, or even block, I usually warn or block both parties, in order to most effectively prevent continuing conflict without trying to judge the merits of the situation. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will try my best. Mugginsx (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have follow your suggestions as to references along with reading the guidelines. I have now removed all self-published sources I used of Dr. Donald F. Harris. I have, however, used the published sources in the periodical which I believe that you accept since it is acceptable to libraries. Have also used sources to Dr. Lindsay's book which you have voiced no objection to. Am hoping all my work will not be deleted again. Put information on article talk pages as was another of your suggestions and have asked that editors not change them to op cit. references and cited reason and cited Wiki Guidelines in that regard. Thank you for your help. I hope it will not be further needed. Mugginsx (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Team gallery

I replied to your !vote if you wish to continue the discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think enough has been said. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 Question

Hello! I noticed you placed a notability flag on the Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 article, and I wanted to know more about why this film may not be notable. The first film was much discussed when it was released, and this sequel has been greenlit and will be released this Fall.

In any case, I would truly love for there to be a separate page for this film, and please let me know what I can do to make the page as best as it can be. Thanks! 23:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JR00576 (talk • contribs)

WP:NFF; checking it, I think there is no present chance of notability under that guideline. Personally, I think the guideline is a little too strict, but the present article shows why it's needed: there seems nothing yet to say, except what people claim they plan to do. I've decided it list it for WP:AfD . You'll been sent our standard notice about procedure there. But first read NFF, and ask yourself if you'd rather not change the article into a redirect to the section in pt.1. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it can be notable under our rules WP:FILM until principle photography actually begins. Until then,the position taken here is that it's not a film, but a rumor. I did not make that rule, and I'm not altogether sure I would agree with it, but it's what we almost always do, & I'm generally in favor of consistency. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hello DGG, I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rolandas Valiūnas

please create user:Tabbelio/Rolandas Valiūnas for future. --Tabbelio (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see [11] --Tabbelio (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Intellectual property activism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Intellectual property activism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your PROD for University central colombia

I de-PRODed University central colombia at it appears to be a notable institution.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, now perhaps you;ll add some material for an article. But you are right, I should have done that myself. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITM Power

Hi, Can I have a copy of the deleted ITM power, im going to rewrite it. Thanks, Willdude123 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

moved to User:Willdude123/ITM Power DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for User:BitterGrey/CAMH Promotion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:BitterGrey/CAMH Promotion. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BitterGrey (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro-Dutch

I've closed the AfD as keep. Please expand the article and add references to help avoid another AfD! Der yck C. 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvador Tercero DRV

Hey DGG- had a question for you at the above-referenced DRV and wanted to make sure you didn't overlook it because I'm very curious to know your response. Might quickly change my POV on this. It's a sincere question, not some weak-kneed, ineffectual attempt at a broadside rebuttal :D. Take care, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

JAOA – The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association

Hi, do you think this is the appropriate title for this journal? Or should it be "The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association" or "Journal of the American Osteopathic Association"? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title is whatever the journal consistently uses to refer to itself. Unfortunately, this, like many journals, use a number of different variants simultaneously. LC uses: "The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association." [12]; Worldcat shows an equal use of "The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association."" snd "The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association : JAOA". I read the title page as "JAOA : "The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association." This sort of problem is recurrent in libraries, and the way it is solved changes from year to year. But all sources I see include the word "The" in the title. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess I'll leave things as they are and just create redirects for the alternative titles. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your help! It's been a looooong time since I did New Page Patrol and it's clear I need to review a few things. Rob Banzai (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources

I'm finding more and more that newbies are misunderstanding about when primary sources are acceptable, or even if they are acceptable at all.

I started a look at some policy and guideline pages, but through typical over editing (such pages are typically edited/developed due to some current event or other), the primary sources explanations seem a bit watered down and too vague.

If you wouldn't mind, would you a.) help me find any and all pages relating to primary sources, and b.) would you be willing to help write a stand alone guideline concerning them, to better help editors understand usage and so forth? - jc37 02:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no simple guideline. partly because there is no definition of "primary sources" that applies to all types of subjects, and party because the possible uses of them in Wikipedia are very various. Attempts to write one are what have generated the present state of confusion. Just a few example example: to a historian, a newspaper is a primary source, because it is used as the data about which histories are written. To us it is a secondary source, because it's an professionally written and edited responsible covering of the events. To a biologist, a journal reporting research is a primary journal, as distinct from a journal that published review articles, but the actual primary source is the lab notebook. A historian of science studies both it and the publications as primary sources for the history. The same source can be both primary and secondary: an appellate court decision is both: it's the primary source for the wording of the decision, but it's a secondary source, and a highly reliable one, for the facts of the case and the appropriate precedents. In literature, the primary source is the work being discussed; the secondary source is the discussion, but the discussion is a primary source for the thoughts of the scholar in an biography of the scholar. For a fictional work, the work itself is, though primary, the best source for the facts of the plot, because it is more detailed and accurate than anything that may be based on it; for interpretation of motives, if not obvious, a wecondary source discussing the work must be used--but there is not clear distinction about what is sufficiently obvious. The practical distinction for Wikipedia is that primary sources which cannot be used as such except as illustrations are those that require interpretation, because we do not do interpretation, which is original research. A textbook is often given as an example of a tertiary source, being based mostly on review articles; but advanced textbooks usually discuss the actual research article themselves to a considerable extent. And some textbooks, like Knuth's books on TeX and Metafont, are actually the primary sources, because the material presented there was never discussed previously and is of his own invention--unless one wishes to consider the program coe as the primary source.

In any given situation at Wikipedia , the guideline however written will always require interpretation, and the authoritative place for interpretation is WP:RSN--even though the individual interpretations may be contradict each other; just as the authoritative determination of notability is Deletion Reviews, even though different discussions may contradict each other. An encyclopedia is not a machine-written summary, but a work of creative human judgment about what to include, how to source it, and how to present it. The concept that we just repeat what the sources say in a proportionate way is overly simplistic: it helps teach beginners the principles, but does not actually decide any non-trivial cases. The examples which makes that clearest are the unfortunate widespread use of selective quotation and cherry-icking in controversial articles. I'll get things started by copying this into an essay. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a very good start.

Due to some of the issues you note, I think I'm going to ask a few others to also help. (User:Black Falcon in particular I have found is great when it comes to policy/guideline page creation/editing, as well.) - jc37 02:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there will not be complete agreement; but since RS is a guideline explaining the details of the fundamental policy WP:V, the practical course will be to indicate the accepted range of variation rather than try to find an actual single wording--attempts at that are usually either vague, or do not actually have the claimed consensus, because different people go on to interpret it their own way regardless of what gets written. (yes, I propose that as a general approach to writing guidelines) DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ever get around to copying this into an essay yet? : ) - jc37 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open Biology

Hi

Thanks for your support on Open Biology. I have added some comments to the article's talk page and would be grateful if you could take a look and guide me. Thanks PointOfPresence (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information to show it is already actually publishing articles. What is needed now is published comments from third parties about the jhournal

Talk:The Cost of Knowledge

Hi, this certainly will interest you. In addition, I'd appreciate your input here. Am I fighting windmills? :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid

I expect better of you than this -- both the edit summary implying that I haven't read the article and the restoration of something deleted on grounds that the sourcing is insufficient for a contentious claim in a BLP (a restoration coming with no effort to discuss on the talk page, no less). Since you insist on using the source, I will revise the text to match what it says. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the bare assertion, I added the quotation, from which anyone can decide for themselves if the article makes fair use of it. FWIW, I have some doubts about the article, and I've been discussing them at AN/I. You may notice I did not say "keep" at the AfD, at least not yet. My position is very strongly that removing the material during the AfD is prejudicial to making a fair resolution, because some people do !vote without checking the article history. This isa very difficult case, of someone who apparently was once very active and now wants to distance himself. The ethics of how to handle it is not clear to me; I can make an argument that either way is immoral. Do no harm can be read in either direction--do no harm to whom, exactly? In the general case, people who were involved in what would normally be considered dangerous violent organizations may truly have changed their views--or may just want to conceal them. Even if they prevaricate on the facts, that does not prove they're being overall dishonest. One might think that someone who was trying to conceal present activity would hardly write us a long letter, but various people engaging in dubious commercial schemes have done just that. When faced with undecidable moral issues, we can of course resort to technicalities, but that's the way of a bureaucrat. DGG ( talk ) 14:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coomer Lake among others

I see that you've deprodded the 4 lake articles I created under the guise of WP:NGEO. I created all 4 of these (among a host of others) in my early days on Wikipedia. I reviewed them the other day and I realized how insubstantial they are. For example, Coomer Lake is a small residential lake adjoining a neighborhood. I've seen unnamed duck ponds that would compare. The others are similarly nonnotable. As you know, NGEO is also just an essay not a guideline.

I actually do think that there is inherent notability for most geographical features, but obviously there's some limit to this. The tributary that forms during a heavy rain in my back yard is not notable. I realize the USGS database is a tempting brightline, but... and I'm speaking from experience here... articles like the 4 I created years ago, and am reviewing now, are the perfect example of how that criteria alone isn't enough. And on that note, they don't even begin to have sources beyond the trivial listings in atlases, maps, and.... the USGS geo names database.

I'm not trying to remove useful content here, but these articles are 1 line stubs, if you can even call them stubs. If I saw these created today I'd certainly prod them. I'm frankly a little confused about your objection to their removal. I think in most cases I could get away with a G7 on all of them since I'm the only one who ever added content to them. I'm open to discussion of course, but these don't have any potential for growth beyond what's already there largely because they're simply not notable.

I've created dozens of geographical articles, most of which are notable, but in my early zeal I went too far and I'm trying to correct that now. I find it strangely hilarious that my own prods are being removed now, 3 years later. Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I noticed that also, but after I deprodded. You could technically G7, yes, and I thought of it. But what I really should have done is simply redirected/merged a line to the town or whatever. Isn't that what the essay WP:N (Geography) suggests in exactly such cases, where there's no more information? Though technically just as essay, I think it reflects current practice. That way, someone who looks it up will at least known whre it is. (One's in a park, o perhaps the park should be the article., and if it too is insignificant, included in the town article, e.g. The town has several parks, including Park X, which contains lake Y., ...) DGG ( talk ) 14:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good idea... I'm actually surprised I didn't know about that. I'll do that in the future cases. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeyScan Inc deletion

DGG, I understand that a page titled KeyScan Inc was deleted. According to the last note I received I had to add more info for notability. I'd appreciate if you can look at the below and advise. Thanks!

References

Correia, Jared (2009). "Hardware That Automates Routine Office Tasks Supercharge Your Law Office for Power and Portability". American Bar Publication.
Petro, Nerino J. (2009). "A combination keyboard-document scanner packs a lot of punch into one package. It could solve cost and desktop space problems for some law offices". Volume 35 Number 2.
Dr. Emmott, Larry (2010). "That means no desk space sacrificed to a scanner, no leaving your chair to trudge across the office to scan a document then running back to save it to the proper chart". Emmott on Technology.
Stone, David (2007). "Some ideas are so intriguing that they refuse to die even if their early incarnations do. One such concept is combining a scanner with a keyboard". PC Magazine.
"Award for only PC to have the built in color scanner". VHXN.COM. 2009.

(OR 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

Brandon, John (2011). "A Keyboard With a Built-in Scanner". INC Magazine.
McGann, Kevin (2010). "KeyScan, Inc., in a patent infringement case obtained a favorable claim construction ruling".

@@ Line 1,290: / Line 1,290: @@
 :Disclose any [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] that you may have, make neutral improvement of the encyclopedia your highest priority, and defer to the judgment of disinterested editors.  If you follow that guidance, you can work on topics related to your employment.  I think that you could work to improve our article on the [[Center for Creative Photography]] on your campus.  As an [[Ansel Adams]] buff, I would love to see that article expanded. [[User:Cullen328|'''<font color="green">Cullen</font>'''<sup><font color="purple">328</font></sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<font color="blue">''Let's discuss it''</font>]] 06:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 ==Business articles==
@@ Line 1,357: / Line 1,355: @@
 As far as his two books, please refer to the US Copyright website.  My question to you is:  what do you stand to gain by trolling about wikipedia and advocating the deletion of legitimate contributions by for example, a Indian Born HINDU scientist?  We need to know what exactly you're intentions are.  We're the ones getting tappped, btw.([[User:RaghuVAcharya|RaghuVAcharya]] ([[User talk:RaghuVAcharya|talk]]) 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC))
 :OK, I'm referring this to a community decision at AfD in a day or two. I've commented again on your talk p., and I already did urge you  not to make this personal '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
-== Marking Speedy Deletion of International Institute for Trauma and Addiction Professionals ==
-I am really quite shocked that you would mark this article for speedy deletion.  This is a partner article to [[Certified Sex Addiction Therapist]] which has been edited and approved already by several Wikipedia editors.  This article cites 17 references!  Including Newsweek, the American Psychological Association, the National Board of Certified Counselors, and several newspaper articles. Only four of the citations refer to the official site or an associated site.  The other 13 qualify as third party references.  This is not a promotional article, it is written in an informative manner.  The problem with this subject is that there is a lot of sub-standard information.  This is THE organizing body that sets the standard for this field.  As the references attest.  Why don't you do some reading on the subject before casually deleting appropriate articles that meet Wiki standards!  This must be referred to a greater decision-making process.[[User:TBliss|TBliss]] ([[User talk:TBliss|talk]]) 04:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-::I placed a speedy deletion tag on [[International Institute of Trauma and Addiction Professionals]] not for the failure to show importance, but for being written in an entirely promotional manner. It does indicate some importance--at least enough to pass speedy. I'm not that sure of actual notability, however.  I am sure about promotionalism. I say that because I did read the article, and did look at the references--had I not closely examined the references, I might have taken them at face value. nother WPedian just removed the deletion tag, on the basis of it being a "legitimate standards body", which is true--but that didn't address the promotionalism.
-A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases.  Of the references given, almost all of them are either blogs or general works on sex addiction, like ref 1 & 15 (which do not mention the Institute)  , or directory listings like refs 5. 6, & 14 or mere mentions (like ref. 2, the Beast account --which you attributed to Newsweek-was it perhaps reprinted from there? --, which merely gives the institute as the affiliation of one of the people interviewed, or the Counseling Today article, which merely says it administers an examination.) I  suspect the books to contain  mere mentions also. The Behavioral Healthcare article is the only possible third party source significantly about the Association, and it is essentially a press release. So what third party has written substantially about the ''Institute''?
-A WP article also needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. The simplest way to avoid inadvertantly doing this is to avoid adjectives. Don't talk about the overall importance of the subject--talk about what they have accomplished--this is probably the main failing in the present article.  Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia--not about sex addiction or the examination, but about the Institute.
-As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without [[WP:Conflict of Interest|Conflict of Interest]]; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.
-I have a suggestion that will preserve the information: merge the two articles. I suggest merging under the name of the certification, because I think that's what people want information about. (That article too is promotional, in exactly the same fashion--and there's a good deal of duplicated content.  Alternatively, acting as an editor, not an administrator, I will remove the promotional parts and irrelevant references from the present article. This takes more than routine rewriting, but I'm willing to do it, as I've worked a good deal with articles like this. If you do not like what I do, we can ask for a third opinion, but remember that you do not own the article. As a first suggestion. I'm tagging for the merge; if you agree, I will help you do it. The principle is better one strong article than 2 weaker ones.  As the merge tag says, the place for further discussion is [[Talk:Certified Sex Addiction Therapist]].  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
-:That's a very kind offer you have made to the page creator. I have asked him to accept your intervention. --[[User:Ed Poor|Uncle Ed]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 05:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 == RFA ==
@@ Line 1,453: / Line 1,435: @@
 {{Talkback|DGG}}
 ShropshireLad has still NOT removed any of his self-published e-book as references on any of the aforementioned articles.  In addition, he did not remove his listing of his fictional book Spurious Brood from the Books Section he created. I did. Should I remove the references in the article or wait? [[User:Mugginsx|Mugginsx]] ([[User talk:Mugginsx|talk]]) 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
-== Dispute re sources on Katherine More page ==
-I am posting here regarding your intervention in the dispute between myself and another editor. I am concerned that you may have acted hastily and with too little information.
-I am indeed the author of the ebook The Mayflower Children and the novel A Sourious Brood. I have not tried to hide this; my opening post on the Katherine More talk page made the authorship clear.
-The factual book The Mayflower Children was published by my company Ascribe Publishing; this is because I am a professional writer & publisher. I am now retired, but until recently I was a well known UK journalist, as any google search under my name will reveal (Phil Revell - The Guardian). My company is listed in the UK (Company No. 07745023)  and the books have valid ISBNs. I am currently going through the process of depositing a digital copy with the British library as required by UK law. The fictional book 'A Spurious Brood' meets all the requirements for professional publishing. Copies have been deposited with the three deposit libraries in the UK, as is required by UK law.
-My previous books are showing on World Cat and my assumption is that the recent publication date of the two books in question explains their failure to show. The digital ebook was published on December 12th.
-The books themselves draw heavily on research papers by Donald Harris PhD: published in ‘The Mayflower Descendant’, the magazine of the Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants, Volume 43 July 1993 and Volume 44 January & July 1994. Donald also produced two pamphlets in the UK: but these were never formally published. Donald is now in this 80s and infirm, he passed his research to me with the intent that I would republish the material. I created this suite of pages on Wikipedia with that aim in mind. This is certainly not a commercial operation, as anyone giving a moment's thought to the likely market would agree. I have cooperated with the other editor to the extent that I allowed free use of a photograph used on the [[Richard_More_(Mayflower_passenger)|Richard More]] page. I became concerned when factual inaccuracies, (which can easily be verified by third party sources) were introduced onto the pages.
-Your intervention is, I feel, too swift and too draconian. With the exception of today's edit I have made no article edits since December 30th. I am therefore at a loss to understand your reference to disruptive editing. What I have done is attempt to discuss the issues on the relevant talk pages, but isn't that what we are are supposed to do?
-I do concede that citing one's own publication on a page created by oneself is open to accusations of advertising. But the work is not original research, and does not claim to be.
-In any case my understanding is that the other user is happy to accept the source material. His objections seem to come from the fact that I am pointing out errors of style, fact and inference in his subsequent edits.
-I know that Wikipedia administrators are busy people, and that a reply may not be  immediate, so I will take no action until I receive your reply.
-[[User:Shropshire Lad|Shropshire Lad]] ([[User talk:Shropshire Lad|talk]]) 20:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
-::I am sorry, but that is simply not true.  Do you not know that every edit you make is maintained in your edit history?  That includes talk pages, article pages and your own personal page.  You insult someone's intelligence by making such claims.   The first time you reverted me was today.  That was after much talk on the talk pages.  The other day you "linked" some names on one of the articles.  That is all I see.  You are talking to an administrator with a PhD.  Don't make yourself look foolish with such statements. [[User:Mugginsx|Mugginsx]] ([[User talk:Mugginsx|talk]]) 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
-:first, some general matters: No administrator in at Wikipedia makes final decisions. The community makes final decisions, at the various venues. Admins make decisions based on assumptions about what the community will support in unambiguous cases. I can and  do block to avoid further disruption from anyone who insists on placing in an article multiple references to their own works without tacit or express consensus, because doing this is unambiguously against our guidelines, and there is complete community support for dealing with it this way if necessary.  (if an author places a reasonable reference, and if nobody objects, there is tacit consensus. That's not the case here). I very rarely actually need to block for anything, because when I give advice about how to avoid getting blocked, people almost always have the sense to follow the advice. However, as an admin, I cannot control the actual content in an article; if I edit, I edit as any other editor. But I have the responsibility to prevent disruptive editing behavior--if the matter is serious and I see it, I cannot just overlook it, but I must either act myself or call it to some other admin's attention.
-:Now, about the sources: '''Your books''' on the topic are self published. Unless you can show that you are an authority on the subject as proven by reliable sources, or unless the books get such reviews in reliable sources as to show them reliable , or get cited by reliable sources in such a manner as to show them reliable, or the like, they may not be used as references, by you or by anyone. There's really no room for equivocation here. They must be removed. '''Harris's work''' has been used here a few times--it has been cited to the self-published pamphlets with an inexact mention of the original publications on which they are based; this needs to be changed to show exactly where they were originally published, including the page numbers. He has no other relevant published work, so I cannot see how he would qualify as an expert, but his work is usable if published by a RS with proper editorial control, through peer-review or otherwise.  '''The Mayflower Descendant''' is held by most major libraries, and is thus a possibly reliable source--I would accept it as a convenient source for the reprinted original documents; the question is accepting it as a RS for the synthesis.  But I think it would need discussion.  It is not a peer-reviewed journal, though I believe that in 1990 the editor was Alicia Crane Williams. As she has published nothing except through the society, or privately, I can see no reason for considering her editing as the necessary editorial control for a RS.  [http://www.massmayflower.org/publications/md.htm] Based on what I see in Google Scholar, the publication is very rarely cited by   ordinary historical journals--of course that database is not near complete.  I'm open to being convinced for using it.
-:Probably a good deal of the article can be sourced from other sources. I tend to be flexible about accepting primary sources for the plain facts of a matter, though not for interpretation. If there is no RS for the interpretations in the article, they must be removed; the technique here is to just present the facts, and trust the reader to make the obvious conclusions.  There would still be enough left to justify an article. i'll copy this to the article talk p. Discussion continues either there, or RSN.  There is no point in discussing it further here. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 == MSU Interview ==
@@ Line 1,511: / Line 1,464: @@
 ::of course I am willing to do it, and you may use my wikiname and my real name however you please, though if others are not giving their name likewise, I am sure you will do so in such a way as not to give my comments any greater implied emphasis. I should like to speak with you first about your project in general, and will email you. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 06:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
@@ Line 1,557: / Line 1,509: @@
 |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hello DGG, I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian. [[User:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">SwisterTwister</font>]] [[User talk:SwisterTwister|<font color="green">talk</font>]] 06:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 |}
-==Disambiguation link notification==
-Hi. When you recently edited [[High School of Peking University]], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page [[International High School]] ([[tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/High_School_of_Peking_University|check to confirm]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/High_School_of_Peking_University|fix with Dab solver]]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the [[User:DPL bot/Dablink notification FAQ|FAQ]]{{*}} Join us at the [[Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links|DPL WikiProject]].</small>
-It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 09:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 == [[Rolandas Valiūnas]] ==
 please create [[user:Tabbelio/Rolandas Valiūnas]] for future. --[[User:Tabbelio|Tabbelio]] ([[User talk:Tabbelio|talk]]) 10:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
@@ Line 1,593: / Line 1,539: @@
 Hey DGG- had a question for you at the above-referenced DRV and wanted to make sure you didn't overlook it because I'm very curious to know your response. Might quickly change my POV on this. It's a sincere question, not some weak-kneed, ineffectual attempt at a broadside rebuttal :D. Take care, [[User:Ginsengbomb|<font color=#AAAAFF>'''''ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ''''']][[User talk:Ginsengbomb|<font color=#D50000>bomb</font color>]] 20:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
-==Please comment on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#rfc_D4C4AF7|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga]]==
-Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Request for comment|request for comment]] on '''[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#rfc_D4C4AF7|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga]]'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#suggestions for responding|suggestions for responding]]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:Feedback request service]].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— [[User:RFC&#32;bot|RFC&#32;bot]] ([[User talk:RFC&#32;bot|talk]]) 04:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 == [[JAOA – The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association]] ==
@@ Line 1,636: / Line 1,579: @@
 Hi, this certainly will interest you. In addition, I'd appreciate your input here. Am I fighting windmills? :-) --[[User:Guillaume2303|Guillaume2303]] ([[User talk:Guillaume2303|talk]]) 09:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
-== WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter  ==
-{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/February 2012 Newsletter notice}}
-{{tb|Mann_jess}} &nbsp; &mdash; [[User:Mann_jess|<b>Jess</b>]]<span style="margin:0 7px;font-variant:small-caps;font-size:0.9em">&middot; [[Special:Contributions/Mann_jess|&Delta;]][[User_talk:Mann_jess|&hearts;]]</span> 03:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 == Shahid ==
@@ Line 1,647: / Line 1,585: @@
 I expect better of you than [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sajeel_Shahid&diff=477391065&oldid=477374655 this] -- both the edit summary implying that I ''haven't'' read the article and the restoration of something deleted on grounds that the sourcing is insufficient for a contentious claim in a BLP (a restoration coming with no effort to discuss on the talk page, no less).  Since you insist on using the source, I will revise the text to match what it says.  [[User:Nomoskedasticity|Nomoskedasticity]] ([[User talk:Nomoskedasticity|talk]]) 17:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 ::I didn't make the bare assertion, I added the quotation, from which anyone can decide for themselves if the article makes fair use of it.    FWIW, I have some doubts about the article, and I've been discussing them at AN/I.  You may notice I did not say "keep" at the AfD, at least not yet.  My position is very strongly that removing the material during the AfD is prejudicial to making a fair resolution, because some people do !vote without checking the article history. This isa very difficult case, of someone who apparently was once very active and now wants to distance himself. The ethics of how to handle it is not clear to me; I can make an argument that either way is immoral. Do no harm can be read in either direction--do no harm to whom, exactly?  In the general case, people who were involved in what would normally be considered dangerous violent organizations may truly have changed their views--or may just want to  conceal them. Even if they prevaricate on the facts, that does not prove they're being overall dishonest. One might think that someone who was trying to  conceal  present activity would hardly write us a long letter, but various people engaging in dubious commercial schemes have done just that. When faced with undecidable moral issues, we can of course resort to technicalities, but that's the way of a bureaucrat. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 14:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-==Please comment on [[Talk:Frasier Crane#rfc_F3E0508|Talk:Frasier Crane]]==
-Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the [[Wikipedia:Request for comment|request for comment]] on '''[[Talk:Frasier Crane#rfc_F3E0508|Talk:Frasier Crane]]'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#suggestions for responding|suggestions for responding]]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from [[Wikipedia:Feedback request service]].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— [[User:RFC&#32;bot|RFC&#32;bot]] ([[User talk:RFC&#32;bot|talk]]) 17:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 == [[Coomer Lake]] among others ==
@@ Line 1,661: / Line 1,597: @@
 I've created dozens of geographical articles, most of which are notable, but in my early zeal I went too far and I'm trying to correct that now. I find it strangely hilarious that my own prods are being removed now, 3 years later. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams|talk]]) 10:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-::Actually, I noticed that also, but after I deprodded. You could technically G7, yes, and I thought of it. But what I really should have done is simply redirected/merged a line to the town or whatever. That is what the essay WP:N (Geography) suggests in exactly such cases, where there's no more information? Though technically just as essay, I think it reflects current practice. That way, someone who looks it up will at least known whre it is. (One's in a park, s operhaps the park should be the article., of if insignificant, included in the town article, The town has several parks, including Park X, which contains lake Y., ...)  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 14:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
+::Actually, I noticed that also, but after I deprodded. You could technically G7, yes, and I thought of it. But what I really should have done is simply redirected/merged a line to the town or whatever. Isn't that what the essay WP:N (Geography) suggests in exactly such cases, where there's no more information? Though technically just as essay, I think it reflects current practice. That way, someone who looks it up will at least known whre it is. (One's in a park,  o perhaps the park should be the article., and if it too is insignificant, included in the town article, e.g.  The town has several parks, including Park X, which contains lake Y., ...)  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 14:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 :::That's a really good idea... I'm actually surprised I didn't know about that. I'll do that in the future cases. Thanks. [[User:Shadowjams|Shadowjams]] ([[User talk:Shadowjams|talk]]) 19:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-== Please support or retract these statements ==
-Being an admin does not give you permission to make any claims you wish, and then not be held accountable for them.  Your recent 'attack' on my collection of diffs, which you called an "attack page," has been almost completely without diffs, but not without claims.  These recent claims in particular I would like you to either support or retract.
-*"You acknowledge in that talk page that you objections are 'largely about his attempts to rewrite the Karen Franklin article on Wikipedia.'"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bittergrey&diff=476557233&oldid=476403373]  I wrote no such thing.  This is an on-wiki discussion about a Wikipedia content, editors, edit histories.
-*"I have noticed the comments on Jan 6 in the talk p for Paraphilia.  Please keep to discussing the issues involved in editing this article at hand, not the behavior of anyone elsewhere"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bittergrey&diff=476557233&oldid=476403373].  I made no edits anywhere on Wikipedia on or near Jan 6th. I was on Wikibreak most of January.
-*"You brought this here."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_February_14&diff=476878543&oldid=476877187]  Again, this is an on-wiki discussion about a Wikipedia content, editors, edit histories.
-*"a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_February_14&diff=476867436&oldid=476861221].  For a third time, this is an on-wiki discussion about a Wikipedia content, editors, edit histories.
-*"[BitterGrey] has stated at Del Rev, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 14 that they have no immediate intention of proceeding to RfC or elsewhere." Again, I wrote no such thing.  Furthermore, WP:AGF requires us to assume that you saw the use and invitation to contribute at Hebephilia[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hebephilia#History_Survey], in which case you would have known that I not only planned to use it in discussion, but already had used it.  (RFC, etc., might have been necessary as a next step.)  Other possibilities include your stalking of me via my contributions list, something you shouldn't be doing given your history with me; or that you filed both deletion nominations on behalf of someone else who, for some reason outside of good faith, didn't want to do it him or herself.  Since there are at least two attack pages being maintained against me, perhaps someone wanted my list of diffs deleted without exposing their attack pages to review?
-As an admin, your comments might hold some weight (among those who aren't familiar with you, at least).  Given your position of responsibility, you need to be careful not to make irresponsible statements about other editors, especially those that you have a history with.  Please support or retract these negative statements made against me. [[User:Bittergrey|BitterGrey]] ([[User talk:Bittergrey|talk]]) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-::I really do not think that at this point there is much use continuing this--I know I have said everything I think needed to be said, and I think that by now you have said everything pertinent also. If we continue, we'll just get more and more annoyed at each other, and I can't imagine how that will help anything '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 == KeyScan Inc deletion ==
@@ Line 1,686: / Line 1,606: @@
 DGG,
 I understand that a page titled KeyScan Inc was deleted. According to the last note I received I had to add more info for notability. I'd appreciate if you can look at the below and advise. Thanks!
- ==References==
+===References===
 <references/>
 {{Reflist}}

Revision as of 05:27, 20 February 2012

Would you consider being my mentor?

Another expert who finds us unwelcoming

Your question about Genetic Alliance

Provident Personal Credit redirect

Request to mentor a small group of students

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

What journal articles should NOT contain?

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

A cupcake for you!

List of most popular missing articles

Discussion at CFD:Science writing

Category:American novels by century

Well Written

An apple pie for you!

Books books books

books

Dazzpedian

You get a lot of messages!

Reply requested

Further reading

Actors

Talkback

A barnstar for you!

Question about deletions (another admin)

May I have your input, please?

Avaya AFD

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

Speedies

A barnstar for you!

WP:AUTHOR

Wikipedia Loves Libraries

Discussions about citations for notable alumni

PR firm discussion

Thoughts on a "high school" A7

A barnstar for you!

Notability of high schools

Re blp prod at Sulev Kannike

Response

Comment

AFD

Chinmaya.328

Notability of books

A barnstar for you

Speedy deletion tag removals

I'm sure I've seen you reference this essay

Autobio

BLP Youtube personalities

That was a nice thing you did

A barnstar for you!

A beer for you

Open Biology journal

uw templates

Ping about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing

University of Toronto Wikipedia's Canada Education Program Help

Why the deletion of Lite Airways?

Ben Federman article

Avoiding confrontation on two articles.

Barbette Spaeth

Stubs

Up for deletion, again.

Deleted File Request

Deletion Spammer

Talkback

Let's Try This Again

Harvey Nikolai Keith

Railway switching networks

Testing those alternate templates you made

Nomination of Charles Scriven for deletion

PixelMEDIA article (and my other contributions)

Dude, You Rock

Noel Ashman

Rich Tosi

Image tagging for deletion

ANI closures by involved admins

Re: speedies

Foster Natural Gas Report

WP:UWTEST members update

The Network for Better Futures

Novelguide