User talk:DGG

“ One person at a time, one article at a time ”

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

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

(some still current material from these pages is below:) :

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

---

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

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

---

The notability problem in a nutshell

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

SPARC

←I am a little confused by what happened to this page SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation you changed to a redirect yesterday --I see the speedy for the redirect but I did not notice the speedy or other deletion process for the original. In any case i want to recreate it as it is one of the things I know about & I'm sure i could do a proper article whatever may have been wrong with the first--If you're an admin could you restore it to my user space for the purpose? DGG 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The SPARC mess was confusing, I'll give you that. :) Someone — I don't know who — moved the SPARC article to the silly title SPARC - Scalable Processor ARChitecture, and created the new silly-titled page SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation. Someone else sensibly requested that SPARC - Scalable Processor ARChitecture be moved back to SPARC. I'm not actually an admin, so my contribution to the mess was limited to moving SPARC - Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation to Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation, and proposing it for speedy deletion since its only content was a link to the organization's Web site. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Scholarly_Publishing_and_Academic_Resources_Corporation for the entire text of the page.) Since then, somebody else has speedy-deleted Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation (per my suggestion), and SPARC has been moved back to its rightful place.

If you would like to create an article about the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation, then Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Corporation is the right place to do it. As long as you can find something encyclopedic to say about it, I wouldn't worry about the fact that a previous page on the topic has been deleted. --Quuxplusone 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (dp)

Actual usage of the European Library by librarians?

Hello DGG. Please see my my question for you over on WP:COI/N, regarding the European Library. EdJohnston 21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC). You asked me about it sometime back, and I've been noticing announcements that it is finally now becoming actually useful; union lists are not used until they have almost as much content as the national ones. It's like OSX, it was obviously going to be universal , but wise people didn't switch over for a while. I waited for 10.4. DGG 20:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

AfDs/blogs

Hi, the assumption is that I'm "pro" the blogs I'm currently fighting to keep an entry for, but that is jumping to conclusions. I wrote many new entries on Muslims and Islam, and I would fight to keep them. They're there because I think it's important people have access to information about these issues. In any case, a pattern won't be seen since this user first did a "speedy delete" on several entries using an IP and only identified themselves when I argued that an anonymous user shouldn't be speedy deleteing (to point out that it's against wiki policy and an ip user shouldn't be discriminated). The reason I went out directly against him is because of his claim that he's being attacked for something he's only been doing for "two-three" days, and of course, looking at his "user contributions" that's what it looks like, so why accuse him? I am not accusing him that he's anti those blogs, I'm accusing him of abusing the system and I don't like it. As I wrote him directly, his only contributions are nitpicking those of others. I think that's anti-wikipedia behavior.

I think blogs are in a catch 22, since old style newspapers have no interest in writing about them, and at most they'll reach the editorial page. Most blogs are not worthy of an entry, but I just wonder how many entries are going to be deleted before the policy is changed.

About the Fjordman blogger, for example. When the original speedy delete came up I said that if you google, it comes up in amazing numbers. To which I was told by this user "it's a common name in Scandinavia". But then, why does the blogger get top billings on the first 3-4 pagse of Google (at which time I gave up looking). What do I need to do to prove that this guy is immensely popular? Misheu 06:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and input. I do need somebody with some common sense to tell me this :-) I'm not so anti what you say as you think. When I told this user that I actually appreciated his speedy delete since it caused me to look up sources he thought I was joking and took it as an insult. I wouldn't be so "up in arms" this time if it wouldn't be posed as "look up all sources now for all entries or else" and come as a 'second wave'. There are so many other ways to approach articles you think need sources. Again, some of the entries he brought for deletion, i agree with, but most of them he's going against established, well known, influential blogs. Misheu 06:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for your help in this recent mess. I appreciate the good words helping move this process forward. --Edwin Herdman 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Librarian stuff

Hi DGG, I recognize your username from around the wiki (recently at some Afds I'm watching). I see you're an admin and a librarian, and that you've contributed to similar discussions in the past, so I'd like to point out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Unusual university spam. I think it's about time we developed a clear policy about this sort of thing. As an established wikipedian and wannabe librarian, I've taken a great interest in this debate. Thanks for considering it! Latr, Katr 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your thoughtful reply. There seems to be a lot of hostility and misunderstanding around this issue, so I hope we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. If I go for my MLIS, I'll do the UW's distance-learning program, since I don't really want to move to Seattle. It sounds like a lot of fun, but I have to do my research and determine if the extra money I would be making would be worth the extra debt I'd be taking on! Latr, Katr 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There is a similar thread that I moved just below the one in which you responded that you might want to check out. I'm taking everything related to that off my watchlist, as I seem to have unknowingly created some hostility between myself and one of the editors involved. If you would, please keep me posted if any new policies or guidelines are developed out of this. Thanks! Latr, Katr 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (dp)

Please please help on Ronn Torossian page, Mosmof and 1 other user have taken it, and the 5W PR page hostage. Can you bring some balance as you have before. (Binyaminyigal (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

sampling deletions

I've replied on my talk page. SamBC 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Printing

No, I think it was an honest mistake - my edit summary was meant to be taken literally, not as minatory (perhaps not the best phrasing). He is on the warpath again at Four Great Inventions of ancient China but I don't worry too much about that. There's absolutely no chance of me going for admin. Keep up the good work at AfD etc, & I'm still waiting for the Master of the Playing Cards expansion. Johnbod 03:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs etc as references

I am wondering about when blogs become useful as references. Some blogs are written by known figures who are notable already from their other writing, or from their qualifications or expertise. Some are associated with people who give their real names and professional positions and credentials. Some science blogs have been highly rated. For example, Nature magazine placed a "review of some of the best blogs written by working scientists" on its website in July 2006.[1][2].

Some examples:

• Pharyngula (weblog) by PZ Myers, a biologist from the University of Minnesota, science category winner in the 2006 Weblogs Awards
• Panda's Thumb (weblog), with many professional scientist posters, also highly rated (second place winner?). Almost every poster I have seen on there already has a WP article, and is noted for other writing already. Usually with good sources.
• talkorigins not a blog exactly, but with many articles written by well-known professional scientists and well-sourced
• RealClimate, a blog produced by "real climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union"
• Aetiology, found at [3], written by Tara C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in Iowa
• scienceblogs, a provider of science blogs includes many interesting and useful blogs [4]. Note that they are selective in who gets to blog, in fact.
• Nature itself hosts assorted science-related blogs [5]

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?--Filll 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

essentially, i think a review like that of Nature gives authority to the blog. The best way of establishing the authority is to write an article about the blog for Wikipedia. I think this is true in general for any type of sources which not everyone will recognize as notable without an explanation, and I have done so for a few reference sources, and have always intending to do more, including some blogs. Blogs run by magazines are like letters to the editor. Some places screen them very very carefully, some don't. (remembering again to distinguish from the letter to the editor type of short article, as in Nature). Something published in a blog by a recognized authority is an easy case--regardless of where she publishes it, she gives it authority. But remember to be fair about this--some blogs by those with whom we do not agree are also responsible.

so I encourage you to write some articles about blogs. Let me know & I'll look at them. DGG (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC) (dp)

An essay I've written

Hello. Though we are often on the opposite side of deletion debates, I thought you might want to read an essay I've written, found at User:Eyrian/IPC. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on its talk page. --Eyrian 15:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance proposal

Hi. Can I ask you to offer your thoughts on WP:RELEVANCE? It's a careful and ongoing attempt to cut a middle path on the subject of "trivia", among other things. Much obliged.--Father Goose 09:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

AfD notification proposal

Hi DGG. You do not need to change policy to have people notified about AfD. You might want to contact the developer of User:Android Mouse Bot 2 to see if s/he can create an Android Mouse Bot 3 to post the AfD notifications using stats from Wikipedia Page History Statistics. If you check out my contributions, you'll see that I am in the process of manually using Wikipedia Page History Statistics to add AfD warnings to those AfDs listed at the bottom of the August 13th AfD list. I also add {{Welcome!|-- [[User_talk:Jreferee|Jreferee]]}} to their talk page if they are new. I utilize Microsoft Word to assist me in all this. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that happens is the article itself sometimes is not tag for deletion even though the article is listed at AfD. See this, for example. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your participation in recent AfDs involving lists, and given your track record for neutrality and diplomacy, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this conversation has moved to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines. I look forward to your continued input in order to reach a consensus on the issue! Sidatio 00:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Content policy analysis

Wikipedia:Relevance of content/Content policy analysis: let's try to synchronize our views on this subject so that our continuing work on it can be more effective.--Father Goose 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Compersion

I don't understand your rationale for removing the afd tag about this article, but would like to. The article itself is a full wiktionary entry with a usage note. Is your rationale that it should stay because there is discussion and that might lead to an article? Why wouldn't we keep the afd tag and let that emerge from the discussion? If the afd led to some non-dictionary content in the article, that would be OK with me. DCDuring 10:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw your talk entry. That ought to do it. Afd has a too short a fuse for an off-the-beaten track article, I suppose. DCDuring 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Right--there are many attempts to try to find some intermediate or different way to get people to work intensively on articles. I support them as experiments, if they are not too dogmatic of bureaucratic about it, or want to add yet additional complicated rules or machinery; I can't think of a good way myself, but perhaps someone will be more ingenious. By the way, I removed a Prod not an AfD--See WP:Deletion policy for the difference. DGG (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Compersion is a neologism. It appears to have been invented in the subculture of polyamory. They need to a better job of providing hooks to existing words (See meme for a clever coinage) for their own cause. In the same link cruise, I came across the terminology within polyamory page, which illustrates their concern for novel terminology, confirmed by visiting the external links. The article is a glossary. Doesn't the article name alone indicate a problem with WP:NOT a dictionary?

As to Compersion, my WP objection is not to the word, not to the concept, but to the mere dictionariness of the entry. There is a main entry, polyamory, that is a nurturing home for the concept. If compersion were a redirect to that page, it would be fine. Many smaller articles that don't represent potential forks to different articles from a user's point of view ought to be merged or converted to redirects to accelerate the user getting to a meaty article on the concept of interest, in context. I proposed the deletion (sloppily, trying to follow the instructions given in the prod template), because I was thinking in terms of deleting the text content, not so much the page itself. Maybe my goal could be viewed as a merge back into the polyandry article. But only deletion discussions seem to generate debate and significant editorial improvement for less attended-to articles. The source tags especially seem to be ignored. DCDuring 12:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an overlap between dictionaries and encyclopedia. Articles giving merely the definition and etymology of the word, and examples of usage, go in Wiktionary. Articles that discuss the usage--or the etymology--in a substantial way go here--such discussions are not generally allowed in Wiktionary--they consider that information encyclopedic. . Obviously there will be many articles that can be seen from either perspective. The way I look on it is that if the information seems readily capable of development from a subject perspective, then it probably belongs in WP, on the same principle as we have stubs. If it seems unlikely that a subject article could be written, then it doesnt. In this case, there seems to be potential for discussion the concept as well as the word formation. Thanks for the link--I find the invention of these words a very curious phenomenon. On the one hand, the concepts seem to be real--or at least they seem to match what some people perceive in their own feelings and for which there is no standard word. Personally, I dont like this word--I keep spelling it comperson, as a sort of portmanteau between compassion and person.

as for the subject, yes, i did think that might have been part of the reason, and in general I try to support the expansion, not condensation of articles of sexuality. In this case its not really part of polyandry, which is much more limited. The feeling of friendship and love between multiple wives is as much a part of it, for which there is an immense historical record. There's much less literature on the reciprocal, primate males being as they are. There's also of course other possibilities, such as the relationship between a bisexual person's gay and straight lovers. There might be place for a general article, but we'd need a word for it--and here we are back again. DGG (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fallout from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum

As the current Emperor of the Inclusionists, would you be able to take a look at this can of worms and see if you can suggest a solution? I confess to being at a loss - I really don't want to nominate roughly 50% of an editors work for deletion, but even at my most inclusionist I can't really make a valid case not to do so. Can you think of any way we could at least save some of them? (My normal instinct would be to merge them, but I can't think of anything legitimate to merge them to; List of murder victims in New York City would be unmanageably large, to say the least.) Any thoughts? — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that... My gut feeling is to leave them until other people stumble across them and they're nominated one-by-one — a bulk nomination is likely to lead to a huge amount of arguing & bad faith — but I see real problems with any attempt to rewrite them. My gut instinct (assuming there's nothing to merge them to) is to cut them down to stub length (Wikipedia is not a true-crime magazine, and I see no reason at all for the precise details unless they're directly relevant to the case), but I've no doubt at all that that would spark a permanent revert war. There are 500+ murders in NYC alone every year, and I really can't see anything more noteworthy/notable about these than any others. (Sooner or later, someone's going to need to turn their attention to Billy again as well; he's still cut-and-pasting as fast as ever.) Ho hum. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. The diff of your response was also quite informative and helps shed light on the pattern of your participation. In response to your comment above, I would like to make two points.

First, I agree that WikiProjects are effective for bringing together and coordinating the efforts of various editors; that's one of the reasons that I consider the Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject category tree to be useful, and am generally hesitant to delete (or suggest deletion of) any page that is used by a WikiProject.

Second, I would be surprised if people watchlisted every user category that they appeared in; it's more likely that they just watchlist the ones they have created. Still, I don't view paternalism to be an issue with user category discussions, since appearing in a user category rarely involves an actual, conscious decision. In virtually all cases, users appear in a category because they transclude or have substed a certain userbox. Their appearance in the category is coincidental and they may even be completely unaware of the accompanying category. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Academic articles, what I think is important

In answer to a question from User:Dgandco about what constitutes the important requirements--as I personally see them

1. . Do not ever copy anything from a website, unless you fulfill the requirements of WP:COPYRIGHT. even then, it must be suitable.
2. . Read WP:BFAQ for information about conflict of interest and the necessary precautions.
3. . Read WP:PROFTEST from information about what counts as notability for faculty and researchers
4. . Remember the difference from an academic CV, which lists everything pertinent, and an encyclopedia article, which contains only information about the most important accomplishments.
   1. . List only major works: Books, the most important peer-reviewed journal articles, major awards, chairmanships, and so on.
   2. .Books are shown to be important by first, the nature of the publisher, and second, reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Include exact citations to such reviews, and third, being cited elsewhere.
   3. It is appropriate to list all the published books. Works in progress don't count for much.
   4. .Journal articles are shown important by fisrst, being published in excellent journals, and second, being widely cited. In the humanities, Scopus and Web of Science unfortunately dont work for citation counts--do the best you can with google Scholar.
   5. Overall number of peer reviewed articles is important, but do not actually list them all. Only the most highly cited or most recent or most significant. Usually, 5 is sufficient.
   6. Internal university committees are not usually of encyclopedic importance, nor is service as a reviewer. Editorships are. Positions as the head of major projects are.
   7. Teaching is only of encyclopedic importance if documented by major awards, notable students, or widely used textbooks .
   8. University administration below the Chair level is not usually important.
   9. Details of undergraduate work is not usually important, nor is any graduate work except the doctoral thesis research.
   10. work done independently after establishment as a full member of the profession in one's own right is what is important.
5. Remember the difference between public relations and an encyclopedia article
   1. Avoid adjectives of praise or importance
   2. Mention things once only.
   3. Mention the full name , & name of the university and department, only once or twice.
   4. Avoid needless words. Write concisely.
   5. Avoid non-descriptive jargon, and discussions of how important the overall subject is to society.
   6. Important public activities need to be documented by exact references to reliable 3rd party public sources/. don't use vague phrases about importance to the community and the like--list specific activities.
   7. .Do describe the research in specific terms, but briefly. Link to a few very specifically appropriate WP articles.
6. . follow WP style
   1. . Differentiate between External links, and references.
   2. . Link only the first appearance of a name of an institution or subject, but link all institutions and places
   3. . Give birthdate and place if possible
   4. . Use italics for book titles and journal titles, never bold face.

AND

• Be prepared to meet the common objection, "all professors publish. What are the third party sources saying this one is important" (dp) DGG (talk)

Has this account been compromised?

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

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

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

Speaking of deletions, I've been arguing for the validity of the concept in Xenofiction, but my characteristic bungling is hampering me. Could you give a hand? Thanks.

--Kizor 02:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you've been doing whatever can be done--except that if you can find a few more uses of the term, it would certainly help.. DGG (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but more of it needs to be done and the fact that IRL my insomnia is starting to verge on mental instability has made that kinda hard. There's now a question there addressed to you, btw. --Kizor 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I recovered. The article was deleted, but you can't have everything, can you? --Kizor (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

from the AfD " not part of the critical/descriptive vocabulary I'm aware of. It might be someday, but not now" -- so try in a few months. If it is really expanded and much better sourced, and meets the objections, it can be Boldly inserted--otherwise it needs to be put on a user page and requested at DRV. If you don't have a copy of the latest version, ask me to send you one. DGG (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Antarctica cooling controversy

Thanks for your opinion, I think your judgment was balanced and fair. By the way, I love your quote, which you invented by the results of the search I did. You can bet I am going to use it. Go ahead and make a userbox. It's really good. Mariordo 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

other sources

DGG, It might be useful to mention in the discussion which are the reliable big US biographical dictionaries, that can be used as better sources - no doubt you know. Johnbod (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two. The older one is Dictionary of American Biography 1928-1937, and supplements through 1985. Most college libraries and large public libraries will have it in print, locations at. [6]--not all libraries will have all the supplements. I do not know if it is online.

the newer one, greatly preferred if available, is American National Biography Oxford Univ press, Print and online. Print in about 1800 libraries--essentially every college library and many large public--a listing can be found at [7]. (if you enter your zip code it will show nearby libraries) Online in at least 200 libraries and library systems--partial listing at [8]. They have a personal subscription at $25/month.

They each have about 20,000 entries, but not all the older ones were carried over into the new edition. Obviously, the new one is the more accurate for the ones it covers, and will have an up to date bibliography, listing both primary sources and selected secondary sources. I would regard anyone with a full article in each as unquestionably notable. My impression is that it is less scholarly that ODNB, but full up to the demands of WP.

there is a convenient free online bio of the day at [9]. Todays listing is Fiorello H. La Guardia. There is also, free availability to the biographies in every monthly update during the current month, at [10] The lastest is october 2007, and contains 43 articles--most but not all are in WP, but some are without good references. Between them, that's 800 articles a year available free. This would be a convenient way to help build the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LCC

The LCC subpages have been imported into Wikisource, where they can be expanded without the restraints of Wikipedia. I have asked for comment regarding the sub-pages at Talk:Library of Congress Classification#sub_pages. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

My motivations

Thanks for your note. I'd like to explain my motivation here, which I think has been misunderstood due to my admittedly high level of persistence -- there's been a lot of rhetoric directed at me that I think is wholly off base ([11] [12] [13] [14]). My interest in this was sparked when I found little coverage of these topics outside the movement itself, which led to the "independent sources" question.

My persistence is partly caused by my frustration with the discussion: most of the comments advocating "keep" seem to me to misunderstand the issue (yours excluded, as I'll get to). The central question, as I see it, is whether the fact that a religion is notable automatically means that its deities are notable. One aspect of this question is whether publishing houses associated with the religion are sufficiently "independent" for WP:N purposes to establish notability. I see that as an open question of Wikipedia policy, and few people in these talks have addressed it. You did respond to it, and I appreciate your having taken my position seriously enough to reply. I disagree with your response, because I have a harsher understanding of the policy behind WP:N: I think that if a subject is notable, it would have been written about in sources completely independent of the subject (as most of the Catholic saints have been). But I feel that the ability to discuss interpretations of WP:N at that particular AfD has been shut down by off-topic speeches and accusatory rhetoric.

So please, don't interpret my persistence as a view about the validity of minority religions. I think they are interesting and should be explained on Wikipedia. My concern is about policy interpretation. Fireplace (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Since you seem to like my attention to Ken Wilber, I see this question as analogous to the question of whether the notability of Ken Wilber establishes the notability of Ken Wilber's jargon, like AQAL, which was turned into a redirect for similar reasons. Fireplace (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have written if I did not take your work seriously--and I am aware of some of the absurdity in the defenses of those articles. I understand you want the topics to be covered appropriately. Where we disagree is what that entails; I think a religion being notable does mean its deities (and quasi-deities) are notable, in reasonable proportion to their significance. I'm not sure how far to carry it. Every canonized RC saint is I think notable, as well as those traditionally honored. Every Sufi saint would therefore be notable, and every Hindu or Buddhist incarnation if there is literature discussing them enough to write an article and people here to do it. For smaller religions, there might be some limit needed if there were a great many figures involved, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. In general, whomever the believers think most important are important.

I certainly do accept in-religion sources for articles on the religion--if there are outside views, so much the better. As you want to discuss it further, fine--I consider the RS noticeboard a good way of handling these questions. To my knowledge, only a few Catholic saints and other holy figures have much non-Catholic commentary, because nobody else bothers--except anti-Catholics with their own POV. It will be interesting to actually look on this one. However, I am surprised people can't find our Theosophist deities discussed in books about or attacking Theosophism, or at least other tertiary sources. But I personally haven't looked. There is consistency in my attitude here, for I also am rather broad-minded about sources for articles on fiction--and i think the consensus attitude is loosening generally about primary sources.

Anyway, especially on topics such as these, I think it very wise to compromise if possible, and I think there are a small enough number of articles to accept. I think you might want to consider that. There are worse problems here.

As for Wilbur, I see less need to compromise--this is more objective. the degree to which someone's academic or pseudo-academic jargon is worth considering depends on the academic consensus. You may want to see my comments on the various Generations pages, or ex-pages. DGG (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

fringe theories noticeboard

Hello, and thanks for your on-the-mark comment at the fringe theories noticeboard. I don't know if you intended to only date and not sign your comment, but as it showed up, your signature did not appear.

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, in case you haven't seen it yet, there is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great White Brotherhood, also resulting from the same noticeboard discussion "Gardens of woo".

There is an additional section also, at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Golden Dawn where it appears some more religion articles may soon be targeted.

I'm not a follower of any of those beliefs and am not an editor of those articles (though I might do a few edits incidential to these AfDs). But I feel concerned about the use of the fringe theories noticeboard to patrol religion and philosophy articles. WP:FRINGE seems intended for science, history, politics, etc,... not religion, unless religion gets into a science article or something like that. I have also been surprised and disappointed to see derogatory words like "woo" used on that noticeboard to describe the religious beliefs of others and the work of well-intentioned editors. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

when I accidentally leave off my sig, its because I get enthusiastic and type 5 ~ marks instead of 4. If you see it, feel free to just add the DGG. I agree with you on the language used; it's an a priori sign of prejudice. FRINGE doesn't apply to religion, but to a certain extent proportionate weight does--the number and extent of articles does depend on the importance in terms of available literature and world-wide cultural knowledge. How to deal objectively with appropriateness content is a weak point in WP. I'm keeping in touch with the discussion there. DGG (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation counts

I noticed your recent post on SA's talk page. How does one do a citation count? Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideally you have access to Web of Science, the standard source covering the natural sciences and "hard" social sciences. Then you search for the author using the author finder feature, display the articles, sort by citations. Ignore any by other people that got left in there. Gets citations from the major English language Euroamerican journals. Scopus is an alternative, if the record doesnt go back before 1996; it's also more complete for social science in European journals. Google Scholar is tricky, you can't just use their numbers, you have to actually look yourself at each one to see what citations listed are from regular journals, because it includes a lot of other material. It is weak before 2000, & doesnt include everything. But it's the only available source for humanities, or where books are involved. In physics you can use arXiv, in computer science Citebase, in economics RePEc, in Biomedicine PubMed, but they are all incomplete. The number you get there will be a minimum. Use the free ones if you dont have WoS or Scopus, though--much better than nothing--if it's critical to notability I'll run it for you in WoS. And feel free to ask for more help if its anything tricky. DGG (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Baumgardner

Yeah, it was one of the more peculiar cases I've come across. What I wanted to know is if community consensus would be that a scientist could be notable expressly because he is a creationist. I don't think that Baumgardner would have been notable had he not been a creationist, but it seems that the community thinks that having an odd-ball opinion (even if it is only obliquely referenced) is enough to confer notability on a subject. Interesting! ScienceApologist (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

thinking further about it, the fact that those very respectable journals take his papers implies something more--peer-reviewing in most subjects like geology is usually blind, not double blind--the reviewers would have been aware of whom he is, and they would be expected to hold the general opinion of essentialy all scientists about creationist geology. It's not like some of the aberrant physics and cold fusion people, whose papers are published by journals that have a habit of publishing really dubious papers. All of his are in mainstream journals of high quality. As I said at the AfD, I think he'd rank as an associate professor, which is borderline. If he hadn't had a conversion & diverted his energies with nonsense, he would probably have done yet better. Much more commonly seen are people from a fundamentalist religious background who nonetheless become scientists and do good work--this to me is much more understandable. DGG (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Daniel Malakov

Relying primarily on scanty delete opinions posted by User:DGG, User:Coredesat acting as a proxy for User:DGG has, I have concluded, improperly deleted Daniel Malakov, stating that he or she was (in doing so) disregarding multiple Keep arguments by the same editor. I am that editor. No attempt was made to conceal the authorship of my arguments to keep, as every one of my arguments in response to other comments posted on the discussion, i.e., subsequent to my first remarks there, was enclosed in parentheses as (Keep) and properly signed.< It seems to me that prima facie, User:DGG acting through the hatchet wielded by User:Coredesat is violating Wikipedia policy: Deletion should not occur on the basis of a popularity contest.
Further, I was not the only one who argued for Keep.
The merits of the argument were never considered. The quantity of Wikipedia pages deleted by User:DGG and User:Coredesat in a short time (see deletion logs under entries for both Administrators) makes clear that neither could not possibly have evaluated deletes on merits. If this is what Wikipedia administrators mean by consensus, they are simply wrong and Wikipedia is nothing more than an amateurish tabloid (the one word Adminstrators eschew above all others) version of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Further, the basis for deletion was notability, a criterion on which there is no objective guideline. I point out, and it must be said, that many Administrators self-identify as fresh out of school with limited life experience, other than experience on Wikipedia. This does not bode well for the future of Wikipedia as a genuine resource rather than merely an internet phenomenon.
Adminstrators such as User:DGG may enjoy their skill at the Wikipedia consensus process, but aren't they really little more than bullies without portfolio? Trygvielie (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you think I'm young enough to be fresh out of school. Nobody has said that for decades. If my colleague acted as my proxy, that would be about the first time; when he closes AfDs in which I participate, it tends to be opposite to my opinion. I delete about 5 to 10 very obvious speedies a day as I happen to come across them them--especially if they look like attack pages; my log shows the timing. But it's great to be called a deletionist--it will help maintain some balance, considering what most people think--especially on articles about crimes, which I often support, even as a small minority. As i said at the AfD, if there's additional sources over time, and you can write a balanced article, try it -- on your talk page. But perhaps someone else might do better at keeping it in proportion. DGG (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked now due to his username, but if he comes back under a new name, I'll instruct him to go to DRV. Thanks. --Coredesat 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request you look at User:Abd/AfD: formula for conflict

I've written an essay on the AfD problem in an attempt to delineate the issues and possibly to address them. I'd very much appreciate any comment you have time to give. Others who notice this are also welcome to comment and/or edit the essay. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN post about you

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

Sorry I missed this [15] as I was out of town and off line. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha

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

See [16]. And once or twice before. Makes my day each time, as the saying goes. DGG (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

List of 100 greatest hockey players by The Hockey News

Isn't the mere fact that the list says that it was copied from a copyrighted source an indisputable indication of a copyvio? If not, my apologies for using the speedy tag innapropriately.--CastAStone/^/(talk) 13:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The list is taken from a newspaper feature article (and since then, published as a book), but it is the articles about each player that would be the most contentious material, and none of that is included in this article. The list itself is basically just the table of contents, and I think that constitutes fair use. If not, we should include at least the top 10, and include an analysis of the full list (e.g. # of players by country, # of players by position, etc.). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

First, as for item one, no. Obviously the person using it thought it was fair use. It doesnt even proved it was actually copied, rather than merely based on. For that matter, there have been times when someone inserting material thought it was under copyright, and it has turned out not to be at all, as when, people have uploaded material from a copyright source (but for which they had fair use) but had been copied by that source from a government source--not that this applies here).

Twas Now is mostly correct--the 4 tests for fair use in the US are purpose of use, nature of material, amount taken, and commercial effect. (it need only meet them overall, not necessarily all 4 ). And this does meet all four: its for non-profit education purposes, is descriptive prose rather than fiction, is a small element of the original, and would have no imaginable effect on sales. But it has been held that if it did not meet fair use requirements, taking only say the top 90% of a list would not necessarily make it usable-- but I think ii would if we reported just the top tenth. But the entire list is fair use. 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Molecular biology ---> library

Hi DGG,

I've been aware of your presence on Wikipedia for some time, but I just now took the time to read your userpage. I find it remarkable that you transitioned from being a molecular biologist to being a librarian. Have you already documented this change of heart somewhere on-wiki? If not, do you think you could? (Even in talkspace, of course.) This doesn't really merit a reply unless you have free time, but I would love to know more.

Thanks, Antelan ^talk 07:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Just send me an email or enable yours. DGG (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Your upcoming presentation to fellow librarians

Please keep us updated on this. And, if there's a digital component, you can place a copy online at meta:Presentations/en. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See User:DGG/LG. This is of course just a sketch. When I gave it, and as I will give it, there's no formal online component--it's a live demo based on the current pages in Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Amateur computer club invite

Here is where I read about it. Maybe Mark remembers more. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation question

DGG, I'm looking to create a new article that I found some references for at the library. I have all the info needed for the source, but I'm not sure how to cite the author/editor. It's a "local history" book that appears to be a compilation of different chapters, which each chapter having (a) different author(s). I'm only using information from one specific chapter. Do I cite the author of that chapter, or the editor of the book? I feel like I should do both. The editor's name is on the cover of the book, and each author is only listed on their respective chapter(s). I couldn't find this addressed at WP:CITE or WP:CIT. Maybe Harvard Referencing has some way that I didn't see. Thoughts? Jauerback (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Use the 2nd form under CIT encyclopedia. The logic of CIT is that you when you use "citation" instead of "cite book" etc., you can combine any elements you need from the various versions; the fullest list is at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles

{{Citation
  | last1 = Kramer
  | first1 = Martin
  | last2 = Ludwig
  | first2 = Peter
  | author-link = Martin Kramer
  | contribution = Chapter on XYZ
  | editor1-last = Boyd
  | editor1-first = Kelley
  | editor2-last = Jones
  | editor2-first = Peter
  | title = Collected essays on the subject of ABC
  | volume = 1
  | pages = 719–729
  | publisher = Fitzroy Dearborn
  | place = London
  | year = 2009
  | isbn = 0-9999-1850-8
  | url =  http://www.book.htm
  | contribution-url = http://www.book#chapter.html   
  | accessdate = 2009-06-29  )
}}
 

which should come out as
Kramer, Martin; Ludwig, Peter (2009), "Chapter on XYZ", in Boyd, Kelley; Jones, Peter (eds.), Collected essays on the subject of ABC, vol. 1, London: Fitzroy Dearborn, pp. 719–729, ISBN 0-9999-1850-8, retrieved 2009-06-29
using url and contribution-url only if it's online. If there is more than one author, use the last1 first1 technique from citation for conferences for them. I included the code for multiple authors and editors if needed; I think I will add this to the CIT page. DGG (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

question

After waiting a while, I just would like to ask you, wether you have seen my question there. Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

commented there. DGG (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: question

I don't think it's a bad idea - although I'm sure it'll be gamed by people seeking to exercise superiority over other admins. As with all things, the ethos in question applies only with a good dash of reason; I sure wouldn't want people overturning BLP or OTRS deletions on me without consulting me first. :-) east.718 at 21:08, January 22, 2008

I think a cat might be a good idea, to complement "administrators willing to make difficult blocks" and all the others - but can't think of anything succint enough at the moment. "Administrators willing to be reverted" sends the wrong message to me - got any ideas? east.718 at 19:48, January 23, 2008

I just saw "This admin encourages other admins to be bold in reverting his admin actions." at User_talk:BovlbDGG (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cal Nichols, & Barnes Reports

I removed the reports because I could find no mention or quote in any independent news organization or other website other than self-added directories--no membership in related associations, identification of authors, presentations or papers, networking--for 100+ reports that are sold via payloadz. Is this a distributor or some sort of a compiler? Flowanda | Talk 06:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They are I think a well-established market research organization,--but in any I may remember wrong, and will check on both parts of it tomorrow. DGG (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amadou Cisse (student)

As far as murders go, Cisse was more notable than average. But the deleted article cited a full-length article in the New York Times—for a Chicago murder. I doubt this new source would convince any who favored deletition.

Moreover, I'm also a bit of a deletionist myself, and I primarily created the page because of apparent user demand for it. I would support a DRV though. Cool Hand Luke 23:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall do as I usually do, wait for someone else to open it and then support overturn & relist. I don't like feeling isolated more than the inevitable. Your comments in the AfD already made clear that you had a neutral attitude, just as I would have expected. DGG (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the urgency in deleting non-BLP, non-promotional articles which are on the cusp of notability. The event is certainly noteworthy enough to get coverage somewhere on Wikipedia; deleting it and saying "no merge target exists" is a recipe for wasted efforts that clashes with my eventualist outlook. If I revive it, I'll let you know. Cool Hand Luke 23:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good people of all tendencies can usually agree on practical action and the merits of compromise positions. DGG (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your compliments on my posts at expert withdrawal! They are very much appreciated! LinaMishima (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said

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

Regarding [17], well said. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Silent Generation

Hey there, just giving you a heads up, I reverted your last edit on Silent Generation, because, as you will see, I was sourcing it at that moment (as well as some expansion). As far as all those lists of names go, though, not sure what to do about those. I think it important to have them there, but not sure how to source them...if you clink on the links, you see that they are from that era. Not sure if all are notable enough, though. If you have any thoughts, I'd appreciate it. Cheers,Cbradshaw (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add, I just saw your comment on the List of Generations page, so I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your comments, esp, re: List of celebs. Incidentally, I didn't add the names, only tried to give them cultural context. As I said above, I am not familiar with all the names. Actually, now that I have researched the topic a bit more, I think the list is even more important, as they are "stars" of a generally quiet generation. When your talking in such a broad topic as a Generation, I don't know how a person can strictly fulfill every characteristic ascribed to it. Look forward to hearing from you. Cbradshaw (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There has long been consensus on the various pages for the S&H generations, that there is no basis for putting these people into the generational categories there because it is not a specific characteristic to be born in a particular 20 year period, and that if he mentions them in his book this is not sufficient, since that would be excessively detailed content. In fact, the pages for generations given only in his book were deleted, by consensus at AfD and elsewhere.

In contrast, if you intend to put them in as characteristic of the generation in its more general applicability, you will have to show that they have been generally considered characteristic of the generation specifically in reliable sources, other than his book, which is considered not to be generally accepted by historians. I call to your attention that blogs and the like are not acceptable sources for this either. There would still be no basis for such a list-0-they should be mentioned in the text, individually sourced for each characteristic person. DGG (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Msg for you on WP:FLAG-PROF talk page

Hello again, {{BASEPAGENAME}} ... please see [[User_talk:The_Bipolar_Anon-IP_Gnome/Flag-prof#example_of_using_FLAG-BIO_..._message_for_User:DGG|this message I left for you]] on another talk page regarding my [[User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Flag-bio|WP:FLAG-BIO]] protocol, as well as [[User_talk:The_Bipolar_Anon-IP_Gnome/Flag-prof#difficulties|my replies to your comments]] ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) _{22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)}

User:DGG/LG

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

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

Spam

Thanks. As I've said it wasn't the first removal that's the problem, it's the ongoing attitude after I try and discuss it with him. For example look at Oliver Hazard Perry Morton, nobody could possibly say that isn't a tremendous addition to the article. Links to university held document archives aren't really spam in any sense of the word providing the link is relevant to the article, they aren't promoting anything and don't fail any part of WP:EL from what I can see. The Indiana archive only has a small set of archives from what I can see, so it's not like there would ever have been hundreds of links. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)_

Useful resource Gen Y

David,

Peter Sheahan is a recognised expert on Generation Y. He consults globally to organizations including News Corporation and Google. His Generation Y DVD series on managing and retaining Generation Y is an extremely useful tool for organizations struggling to attract and retain the best Generation Y talent. How can a useful resource be classified as spam? My understanding is that most patrons of Wikipedia use it only as a reference for further research.

Please reply on to my talk page Samuel Michael Carter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Michael Carter (talk • contribs) 05:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

replied there; the work is self-published. DGG (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

magazines...

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

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

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

Noticeboards, noticeboards, noticeboards!

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

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

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

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

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

Namecheck

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

Wikipedia:Deletion reform study group

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

You are famous

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

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

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

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

Congratulations

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

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

Fame

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

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

Re: User:Jbmurray/Madness

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

A3 to Prod ?

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

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

Ransom Center ?Spam?

Hi DGG, I recently noticed a situation that I thought might be of interest to you. On my watchlist in several places this evening I noticed a user adding links to special manuscript collections that are at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center. The editor Sashafresh did this pretty widely and was given a link spam warning User talk:Sashafresh#link additions. I assume the editor in question is a librarian or researcher at the Center, hence why I thought to mention the situation to you. On the one hand, I can see how it could be a very useful resource if more librarians helped connect Wikipedians with their resources; on the other hand, I see the potential for abuse. In the cases I looked at, the Ransom Center does have some remarkable manuscripts and such that would be of definite interest to the serious researcher. Anyways, I don't really plan on intervening in the situation, but thought I'd flag it for you. --JayHenry (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As you say, these will have to be examined individually. There's been previous discussion on this question, with respect to him and others, and the bar for adding such resources is very high. There are justified examples. There's a better solution, of course: to get copyright release for the first page of a manuscript, put a GFDL tag on a web illustration, and add it to commons. The legends will then show the institution. Adding these otherwise requires prior consensus on the article talk page, which might be obtainable for some of them. Let me try to get into contact off-wiki. DGG (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC) (dp)

Church of Google

Hi David - Please look at this AfD close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (3rd nomination) and some other conversation links User talk:The Placebo Effect#The Church of Google and User talk:Becksguy#Re:Church of Google, and offer some advise, if you would. Do you agree that the closing did not follow consensus as established in the AfD, or not. And do you advise a DRV or not. I think that every item in the nomination and all the delete arguments were successfully answered and refuted. The closer did not take my complied list within the AfD into account, a list that was in far better shape than the article references and that had been pruned and shaped based on input during the deletion discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I second Becksguy's concerns. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but that one was clearly a no consensus at worst. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought, LGRdC. No consensus at worst. — Becksguy (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A very surprising closing. A good admin, who merely made a mistake. Can't figure out why he simply didn't choose to correct it.DGG (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what are you all saying? He just applied wikipedia's notability rules, after all wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Vote counting and claiming consensus are not substitutes for following policies that have had huge amount of community consensus thrown at them for a long period of time until they adquired their current shape.

Also, notice the very first paragraph from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy consists of a single sentence: "The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages which do not meet the relevant content criteria are identified and removed from Wikipedia.". On the deletion discussion section, this gets hammered upon "Here, (on the nomination debates) editors who wish to participate can give their opinion on what should be done with the page. These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.". A bit later, it talks about consensus, but then it links to Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus where it says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted" (the word "not" is emphasized on the policy page, I didn't add any emphasis).

I'm afraid that the consensus on a nomination for deletion is about how the article complies with deletion criteria or not, and not about wether many people thought that it would be OK to keep the page. In this case, the article failed notability criteria, so it was a clear delete, and the admin acted correctly. Going to deletion review without providing additional sources would be gaming the system by faking victimism: "the bad admin deleted my page against consensus". No, he deleted the page following wikipedia policies, and he would have acted wrongly if he had done otherwise, and he would have failed his duty as admin.

Finally, if you think that these policies are wrong and that there are better ways to decide deletion, then you should go to the policies talk pages and suggest improvements. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole "democracy" versus "consensus" thing is actually somewhat contradictory. You cannot have consensus without some kind of majority of support. Thus, if a majority of editors want to keep an article on a website billed as the one that anyone can edit and the sum total of human knowledge, we should not appeal to some minority or narrow viewpoint of the project. That is just illogical and inconsistent with what "consensus" actually means. More editors believe the article merits inclusion. Thus, the consensus of the community is that the article be kept. Those advocating inclusion tend to actually work on improving the article. Those voting to delete did what to help the article? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion decisions don't use "consensus" in the sense you seem to give to the term, they use rough consensus, which I quoted on my comment, and which says clearly that some arguments, the ones going against policies among others, "are frequently discounted". Please see my quotes and read the linked page before trying to say again that "consensus" is on your side on a deletion debate, since wikipedia policies say that it's not, and admins know it. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Enric, I think you misunderstand the proper, limited, role of administrators. We do not judge articles, just evaluate the results of a discussions. We do not decide if an article meets notability criteria, we decide if the consensus at the article thinks it did. Our discretion is just to disregard irrelevant arguments, such as I like it. When I became an admin, I was asked to promise I would not close on the basis of what I personally thought notable; it had not occurred to be that I would ever want to do so, for I would surely be reversed at Deletion Review. Let's continue this there. DGG (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(Damn, I'm technically away, but I couldn't resist answering here) Yeah, that's what I meant, but I disagree on how the consensus is interpreted. He just judged the weight of the arguments behind the votes and decided not to take many of the votes into account because they were not valid keep reasons according to deletion policies, or based on false assumptions about the last nomination debate. He also decided the consensus by looking at the strenght of the remaining arguments, and not at the head count, just like the policies say. Let's make this clear (time to abuse the bolding again) Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus says that Wikipedia policy, (which requires WP:V, WP:OR, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV) is not negotiable. The admin claimed that the article was in breach of the notability policy, and arguments from editors didn't convince him that this was not true, so he had to decide a delete. That's why I say that he appears to have acted correctly. Head count can not superseed policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. The "non-negotiable" mutation is spreading. Well, thank goodness Wikipedia:consensus is policy, and Wikipeida:non negotiable does not even have a page. Said paragraph has been taken out and shot. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, Kim, please don't take this that I am going to tell you as an insult. How about if I tell you that you haven't actually read WP:CONSENSUS, because the you would have noticed that in the exceptions section it says exactly what I have been saying here. I quote "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline".

As you see, a small consensus on a deletion nomination is just not going to override a policy or a guideline just like that. Saying that a certain idea has the consensus necessary to override a policy is an obvious fallacy, since if you actually had all that consensus then you could just go to the policy page and request that the policy be changed to acommodate the consensus.

If you look at WP:PILLARS you will also see that consensus is part of the "code of conduct" pillar, while verifiability is part of the "encyclopedia". As a rule of thumb, I consider that any user saying that a part of one pillar can override a part of another pillar is probably wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

perhaps this discussion would be more productive elsewhere. its not as if we were likely to settle it between us. I'll end this thread by summarizing my general views on the most general issues: The difficult questions at Wikipedia are where policies appear to conflict. Though these conflicts could be regarded as productive of discord, I see them more as leading to flexibility. It is multiple discussions on detail that change consensus. Policy is explanatory of what we agree to do at WP, not forced on us from above. DGG (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you are right, I got carried away trying to "win" the argument. Thanks for reacting so well and fairly. I guess we can go over these issues sometime on the future on some DRV, and they I'll watch my words more and try to be more respectful --Enric Naval (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Communist Propaganda AfD

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

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

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

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

replied on the AfD page: the subjects overlap.

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

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

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

Polyglycoplex

It first appeared in the Calgary paper, which isn't some small-town outfit with a circulation 200; it serves a city of around 500K. If they thought it was notable enough, & if a second paper, the local here (the Star-Phoenix) picked it up (for a city pop 200K), thought it was, I would have thought that would do it. Me? I thought a new way of reducing obesity without evident health hazard was of sufficient interest people might just want to know. And given the number of pages about obscure stuff that have slim chance of even making a major newspaper, I'd say it passes. Of course, I am a bit biased, having created the page, but I'd never have bothered if I didn't think there were people like me who might find it interesting, or valuable. Trekphiler (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the book mentioned on the page, I'm completely at sea. I'd never heard of it before, & I'm completely unqualified to comment. A quick google comes up 15300, led by CTV, which is probably just a reprint, & a bunch of hits for Slim Styles "diet food". Trekphiler (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been invoked

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

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

St. Patrick's Purgatory

Thanks for looking at this. I just chanced on the article.

I found the article unclear as to what "St. Patrick's Purgatory" IS. Is it the name of the pilgrimage? Is it the final destination of the pilgrimage? It is the area where the pilgrimage takes place? (I suppose it could be all three.)

It was when I got to the part about pilgrims being allowed only black tea or coffee and dry toast that I thought maybe it was an April First article.

The bit about an account of the pilgrimage being contained in McCarthy's Bar was what pushed me to ask for another opinion. (That and some other hoax edits I found yesterday.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The name is used primarily for the actual area, not just the pilgrimage. The article does have some elements that are either jocular or derived from a tourist brochure. I'll check on them. DGG (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Webisodes" and the like

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

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Questionable_journals.

Could I invite you to this discussion related to further tweaks to the Scholarship section of WP:RS. I want to try and get this right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Challenge Award - fame at last?

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

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

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

Vattikutti Question

Hey, quick question on this AfD, which I don't feel out of place discussing because you've already !voted. I could substantially re-write the article but when the nom is an admin arguing loudly for deletion, is there any chance it will be kept? Honestly, I don't want to waste time re-writing more than I did which just addressed the main advert issues if it's only going to be deleted. Thanks _Cari ^{Fellow Travellers} 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

to the extent that my own keeps on sometimes dubious articles are sometimes accepted, its because I am known to be willing to work on improving them--the time to do it is immediately at afd, not just promises for the future. Do it now, and call attention to it at the afd. If by any chance the article is rejected, your better one can be used either for deletion review, or for further improvement and then insertion. Ironically, I just this minute came here and saw this after going back to that article and elaborating my earlier opinion. Loud self-assured talking does not always have much to do with the results of an afd, and one particular admin's view of the effect of COI is not necessarily the consensus. DGG (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW, I've never found you to be as adamant in your POV to be arguing with keeps/deletes, as it may be. I just wasn't sure when admin overruled consensus. I'll go work on it a little more per your suggestion. I already noted in a comment to one of Hu12's that I'd done some clean-up to demonstrate notability from external sources. Talk to-Cari^{the Busy Bee} 03:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

the proof that admin views as opposed to valid policy arguments does not overinfluence afd decisions is that admins are usually to be found on the opposite sides of anything interesting. In fact, one gets to be an admin in considerable part because people respect one's views as expressed at AfD and similar discussions. DGG (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I don't think there's a single admin who I haven't thought "HUH?" about one of their decisions/comments but I usually at least understand where it's coming from/based in, even if I don't agree. I did a re-write and left a note, we'll see what happens. I'm not so passionate about this article that I'm going to spend hours on it, but it does appear notable. I think I'll request it to be userfied if it's deleted and I can work on it then Talk to_Cari^{the Busy Bee} 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WW in America

I disagree; WW in America is the one I was in. They had no QC, no documentation requirements, nothing. I wouldn't depend on them for anything more substantial than a mailing address. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If they included you, they probably had a reason. I think it was perhaps the appearance at the Dem Convention. (I havent checked for dates or the like) There is the quality control of not wanting to appear in public in a prominent & permanent place like a jackass. I suppose its time to look for another academic study on them, because libraries do use and recommend them. DGG (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, my invitation to be in WWiA was before my stint as a DNC delegate (I may be wrong); when I failed to order a copy of the volume, I was quietly dropped from the next edition. My concern is that I could have lied through my teeth about academic background, employment history, offices held, etc., and apparently they would have taken my word for it. In this era of padded resumes, this is a matter of grave concern for all users of reference materials. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Will take a look at it again, & ask some colleaguesDGG (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: question

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

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

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

(this refers to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:FLAG-PROF and WP:FLAG-BIO

Hello again, DGG ...

I have trimmed WP:FLAG-PROF, and pointed to WP:FLAG-BIO as the "One True Copy" of the verbosity ... I plan to prune the others (WP:FLAG-FICT, WP:FLAG-INC, etc.), but thought I'd get some feedback first ... WP:FLAG-BIO also has the {{Articleissues}} boilerplate and a few others (like CATs), and I really don't want to duplicate all of that ... I'm trying to make the WP:FLAG-xyz protocols the "bare bones" copy&paste stencils, with the "elaborations" restricted to WP:FLAG-BIO as the "starting place" for most users ... feedback, please. :-)

Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)}

P.S.: Krocodylus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has made me question the need for a WP:FLAG-MOVIES (see discussion page :-) —72.75.78.69 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

feedback coming tomorrow. DGG (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Kewl! I've updated & rearranged Template:Flag-templates to show the "unimplemented" protocols in RED, indicating that they have not been created yet, and put WP:FLAG-BIO as the first one in the table, since it has the verbiage that I'm pruning from all the others ... I also added {{Prod}} to the table for the Guidelines that are not eligible for WP:CSD#A7. —72.75.78.69 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've started rewording the main one. But db-a7 cannot be used for schools, so remove that from the table--they need prod. You also need to separate out the three different possibilities of no assertion of notability, no references to prove notability, and spam. Additionally, the term vanity is very strongly depreciated---people find it insulting. DGG (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I entered IT in the 70s, and embraced "egoless programming" ... I'm pretty laid-back about changes, and have no illusions that I "own" these templates or protocols, so any changes to "soften" or bring them more in line with WP:CONSENSUS is fine by me ... I suggest that you use WP:PROF as the "master", and I'll replicate the changes. :-) Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) _{16:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}

I also learned programming that way--and I too use it as the model for here--it is the only practical way for large scale projects like this. DGG (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've modified {{Flag-templates}} to replace the {{db}} with N/A for the ineligible ones ... more pre-epiphany thinking, I guess. :-) — 72.75.78.69 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

CDS Global page update, 27 May 2008

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

Herndon article

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

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

J.M. Hayes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superiority Complex?

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

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

Sales Catalog

If you permits I would like to ask you for a advice of other article: Internet in Moldova. There are a list of prices there, and the author in my talk page explains his behavior. I've composed a template: {{salecatalog}} for pages like this. What can you suggest on this topic? --serhio ^talk 12:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your contributions. --serhio ^talk 22:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

as for the template, I think it will be very useful. My only comment is that I think "sales catalog" would be a more usual wording.DGG (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

oops, unfortunately, I'm not an English man. Fixed ;) --serhio ^talk 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks plus some questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Flagged articles

Hello again ...

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

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

Category:Flagged editors

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

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

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

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

)

Current project

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

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

)

WP:Lectures

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

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

H.O.P.E. speech

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted articles

Hi DGG, thanks for the note re those two deleted articles. If you want to restore them I have no objections. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Social Science Research Resources Network

Restored. Go to work on it. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor2423

In response to your message dated 06-24-08: "Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to promotional links to various articles, you will be blocked from editing. DGG (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)"

David,

Yes, I have been updating relevant pages with new information from the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants World Refugee Survey 2008. Please note that these updates are entirely factual, and the World Refugee Survey is clearly marked as the source for each. The Survey is an official publication of USCRI, and has received international media coverage. It is the only publication that consistently evaluates individual countries on their treatment of refugees each year, and therefore, it is the best source for recent refugee statistics. All statistics published by the Survey are independently verifiable, and the publication clearly lists USCRI’s research partners. This is an appropriate source for Wikipedia, previous editions have been cited extensively, and there is nothing wrong with updating and enhancing many articles related to refugee issues in succession.

-Amy

Please read our Business FAQ, which, though it deals primarily with business, also applies to non-profit agencies, and explains our conflict of interest policy.If this material has been published by your agency, the accepted way to add it is to suggest it on the article talk pages. Then, editors not affiliated with the source will consider it. I think you may possibly be right that the material is useful,, and you may notice, I have not gone round removing the references, though they need to be added in such a way as not to highlight the name of the organisation. But this is not the way to do it. Others are more stringent than I about our WP:COI policy, and are quite likely to remove the references and the links, and for good measure blacklist your site, if you continue in this manner.

Surely you see that ain order to maintain the objectivity of the encyclopedia, we must guard against people affiliated with any organisation adding what they think important. We get 2000 new articles a day, and many times that number of new links and references. People look at them all, and with a considerable degree of skepticism, for about half of them are totally unjustified public relations, advertising, or personal puffery. Many people try to make a living attempting to add links to our articles, and the addition of many at once to publications of a single organisation, is very much of a red flag.

I try to keep good references in, but they need to be added also that they will stay in; I've helped others do it right. This is already being discussed at our WP:COIN Conflict of Interest, and [[WP:ANI] Incidents noticeboards. I think you will find I have warned you accurately of what is likely to happen. Please read and understand our policy before you respond there. DGG (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Stale AfD tags, no action

Hello, again. You were involved in AfD discussions for New York City DOE Region 1 through New York City DOE Region 10 (ten articles) with three AfD nominations each, last debated in February of 2008, recommending Keep. The final consensus was declared Merge, but nothing occurred after that. For the last four months, nine of the ten articles have been unchanged, sporting a big ugly AfD tag. Given the lack of action on the merge, is it kosher to remove the AfD tags now? In support of this action, an administrator removed the tag for the Region 1 article after a week's delay, but no action was taken on the others. I'm thinking four months is a sufficient waiting period and it is legitimate to remove the AfD tags. There isn't any obvious article to merge/redirect the articles to; an article was to be created or updated with content to cover the merge and it did not appear to have happened. Alternatively, a simple redirect to New York City Department of Education appears as the best merge candidate, but I'm not comfortable it is the correct solution indicated by the AfD discussion, including your own remarks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems, we did to forget to finish the job. I think the intention or at least the obviously best course will be to merge into one article for the regions, New York City DOE Regions. The merge to NYC DOE is a merge to a very complicated article, for an already over complicated series of administrative change and will just make it more confusing. The administrative structure during an important historical time is notable enough. The content that will need to be added is the geographic boundaries and the list of schools. The templates will be a bit of a problem. I think the best course would be to remove them entirely, given that there will be only one article, & change them into a table. If you like, just do it, at this point it's a purely routine function after the closure. Start a new article on the regions, and merge them, keeping the redirects, which deals with GFDL problems. I'll check after you. You dont need an administrator, but if you rather I do it, I will. DGG (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

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

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

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

How's it feel to be a "resource"?

Just a note to say that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Medicine suddenly has a long list of academic journals nominated under AfD. I always value your views on such things. 22:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Efforts at deletion rather than improvement for groups of incomplete articles are worth investigating. DGG (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Heheh, the poster beat me here. I went to leave you a note earlier when I listed the Australian physiotherapy one at the deletion sorting for academic journals but then got kicked offline and figured you'd find it. I think you get consulted on everything remotely scholarly or academic :) Then again, not too different to your off wiki life, is it? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

well, it's even better here--I get all this interesting stuff on popular culture also. Much less limiting than my earlier career as a science librarian--WP provides a liberal education in many different senses. DGG (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Very true, I've gotten inolved with topics I had no idea I knew anything about. And then there are those that I still won't touch with a ten foot pole. Back to packing! _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Resonance

Hello Sir, I talked on this issue to DGG earlier. I have changed the matter according to you. So what's the problem now, please inform me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manozksarms (talk • contribs) 14:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made some suggestions on your user talk page. although you are at the moment blocked (by another admin), you can answer my comments there. I'll keep an eye out. DGG (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Resonance is not a school, rather a private coaching institute. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No original research/noticeboard

Japanese calligraphy by Satow. The kanji read (from right to left) "敬和" (Kei-Wa), literally "Respect and harmony".

Thank you for a deceptively simple offer of advice which struck a responsive chord.

Your user page offers yet another salutary observation which, for me, seems very much on-point: I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience. --Tenmei (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Dr's Curry

Hey, thanks for your comment. To be honest, I don't have any real knowledge of either Dr. Curry. I saw a deletion of a poorly named article that deserved to belong, so I did some research and got the oceanographer one up and running. The other one I moved to a geophysicist page, in order to assist in disabiguation. They do have similar backgrounds, although their degrees appear to be from different locations. Their focus is different to: ocean-saving as opposed to resource-utilization. I'll see what I can do to research the geophysicist (all searches I do regarding Dr. Curry and Exxon bring up a woman who is quite an environmentalist, and her name was all over the Exxon Valdez incident" BMW(drive) 11:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be in this case necessary to actually verify the degree. The possible presence of the three people is a little disturbing. Please let me know what you find. Do you have Dissertation Abstracts available? If not, I'll try to get to it later today.DGG (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Input at List of Paraphilias?

Hi, DGG.

You mentioned once that you had an interest in improving the sourcing at the List of Paraphilias page. There is an ironic discussion on its talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_paraphilias#Include_pedohebephilia_and_gynandromorphophilia.3F, in which some folk are objecting to the inclusion of some of the sourced entries. Your input would be appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: It was the note on your user page about your wishing you had used your real name that convinced me to start editing under my own rather than a pen-name while I'm still relatively new here.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment there. DGG (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Spread of printing ==> Spread of the printing press

Hi! Some months ago I moved Spread of printing to Spread of the printing press as per the discussion on the talk page (that you contributed to). But in this last week the user Gun Powder Ma has reverted this move twice. I've asked him to justify his move on the talk page, but so far no response. I wonder if you could give your opinion on the talk page before I undo his revert. Thanks lk (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think spread of printing is the better title. The printing press is a machine. The operation of using it is printing. Are we concerned primarily with the existence of the machine, or its use? Your comments about Asian printing are however correct, so the title could better be changed to the spread of the european tradition of printing or some synonymous phrase. I will comment there at greater length. I have long been unhappy with the use of "Printing Press" as a convenient term for the system of producing printed books that developed in western europe. DGG (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your point. However, I think 'printing press' makes a nice shorthand for early western style printing and related technologies. Consider, one naturally speaks of the spread of gunpowder, not the spread of shooting guns; and the influence of television, not the influence of watching at home, pre-programmed studio shows transmitted through a radio network. I think 'spread of printing' is a misnomer, as it naturally calls up the earliest printed works from ancient China. regards lk (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Saves

I just noticed that this article: State Duma of Tomsk Oblast is yet another fine save from your side on an article which i deemed hopeless. While other admins would have most likely just deleted the page, you did not only preserve it, but also edited it in such a way that it is a good stub. As far as i know this is truly an unique way when dealing with speedies, as most times they simply get slammed with a myrad of maintenance templates when a speedy is declined. Keep up the great work! :) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately, I can only do this occasionally. The one you mention was easy--just a cut of 9/10 of the material--and many other admins similarly stub copyvios, as they are supposed to if there's something to use and it seems worth the trouble. Most of the time when people tag in declining a speedy, considerably more rewriting is usually needed, and I almost always tag myself, not rewrite. I do try to rewrite one article a day that actually need substantial rewriting, concentrating on things I know and care about. But even a short one for that can take an hour. And it does not take an admin to do this. Anyone can rewrite and --if not the author-- remove a speedy tag. If every acrtive editor did just one a week, we'd save a lot of articles. DGG (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Phage meetings

Can all other groups have their own meeting pages on Wikipedia? Seriously, is this an allowed use for article space on Wikipedia? I can't imagine this qualifying as encyclopedic? But, you're more knowledgable here. The page includes a talk page invitation to continue using Wikipedia for announcements of meetings. I've never seen a group use Wikipedia like this. --Blechnic (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question, I've wondered about it myself. (and in fact I too questioned the page when I first saw it) It's not really primarily a current list of programs in a promotional sense, but a list of past conferences, some but not all of which are in fact are famous (not merely notable) series of academic conferences that would quite possible merit individual articles for the series (but not the individual conferences). We accept bibliography articles, so perhaps a good case can be made for why we should accept these also.

As for the promotional part on the talk page, I will perhaps add a note explaining what can and cannot be included in Wikipedia , and what the purposes of the encyclopedia are. But we do include future sceduled events if they are notable enough, and some of them are. Of course everyone is not only welcome but encouraged to add appropriate material to Wikipedia articles, but the wording you mention is a little troubling. DGG (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Then these should be sourced as to their notability. There is nothing of the sort in this article. There are, however, like the yellow pages and the e-mails I get from my professioal associations, e-mail contacts so the group can continue to use Wikipedia as their private advertising space. --Blechnic (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For individual series of phage meetings to get a separate page, that series has to be sourced enough to show notability. for t he concept of phage meetings in general to get a page, one just needs to show notability for the concept of phage meetings in general, which in fact is quite easy. One does not have to show notability for the individual items of content on a page, just relevance. If we list a bibliography of printed works on bacteriophage, we do not have to show notability for each of them, just that they are relevant content. If the author of that page had intended to give pages for each individual meeting, your statement would be correct.

You are thinking of a thing like List of notable phage meetings, which in general would be considered to require an article on each or the possibility of making one. Actually, it turns out that I can't find a formal guideline on this; I can find precedent for requiring it at AfD for lists of alumni, or people associated with a place, but not really for anything else. The criterion for inclusion of an item of content in an article according to WP:NOT, is just that it be "important", not defined further. Now, this article in question is intended just as the equivalent of a bibliography. The only evidence for that which would be necessary is a link to the meeting, or evidence of significantly held published proceedings, and some indication of professional sponsorship--which is all that is required for an item in a bibliography. But I will check it once more for language that indicates more than this, which I agree would not be appropriate. DGG (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ides the recently added tidbit at 1972. Graham87 04:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

National Research Libraries Alliance

I've stumbled upon an article about the National Research Libraries Alliance. Are you familiar with this? Do you think it deserves an article? Thanks, Zagalejo^^^ 04:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

yes there are problem--I will follow up. These library consortia sometimes are just a purchasing arrangement, Sometimes have other roles & are important. We need some standardized way of dealing with them From the available ghits, it indicates this is just a non-notable purchasing arrangement, but my memory is they also do significant lobbying. I will check and go ahead accordingly. DGG (talk)

OK, thanks for the reply. Zagalejo^^^ 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Apostolic Christian Church of America

Hi - I see you declined my request for speedy deletion of this article. Just to let you know - I still think there are serious problems with the article, so I have added an afd tag. (Unfortunately it seems not to be a direct copy of the organisation's website..) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

agree there are serious problems with the article. Thanks for checking the cvopyvio. i will do the next step & try to remove the spam. DGG (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a little smile?

[18] Really and truly, I don't always vote delete. I don't know if you saw it elsewhere, but I also noted that I've found myself turning down a fair number of CSD requests because the subjects clearly met the threshold for inclusion. Your comments at my RfA did make me more aware of the need to speak up when a decent article or one with potential should at least be given a chance. This is probably a good time for me to say "thanks for reminding me". Best, Risker (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

well, I think well enough of you that you're not even on my watchlist now, so I haven't kept track since way back then. Treating this note as a request for review, I've sampled the log & the history & still see nothing to remark. Is there by any chance something recent you were dubious about? (big smile) DGG (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Holmes

DGG, thank you for your comment in the relevant discussion. I have added my own comment to yours, stating that the assertion on the article that he is the main observer appears to be an opinion, not fact, since no reference/source has been attached to the assertion. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1960s fads and trends in North America

Hello DGG,

your edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1960s fads and trends in North America somehow lead to the page being blanked; this may be a technical problem. I have reverted the change, so the AFD is visible again. Whatever comment you intended to make, would you mind re-adding it? --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC) thanks for fixing it and letting me know. DGG (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

UMN Primate Research

Hey, Sorry about that. I have gotten side tracked with life. I still do intend to add more and I have a little bit written on my computer. Carniv (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to wait a couple of more days to see if you comment on the page and if you don't, I'm going to put the quotes back in.Carniv (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Times of London and John Edwards

Hi D - Well, apparently editors think that Sunday Times sleazy piece that used only the National Enquirer as its source, is a reliable source. I wonder if any of them actually read the piece. There's no reliable sourcing even about if this tabloid story hurts his career - just some random writers' opinions. I'm amazed that this has been added. Any suggestions? Tvoz/talk 08:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I consider Sandstein a responsible admin about BLP, and the consensus was clear, and I've always said no individual admins have the right to object to consensus on BLP questions--or anything else. And, we would really have difficulty saying the event isn't notable--in the end I think it would appropriately have a separate article, with a one line link from the campaign and maybe the bio. I'd think the article should discussing the blogging as much --or more--than the Enquirer's actions. That there is actually a quote from them defending their journalistic methods is telling. I'd not advise going to great lengths keeping it out for a few days when it will eventually be in after all--not as if the convention were tomorrow. I intend to continue discussing the Times as a RS when stories like this are used in WP. I want to wait a few weeks before adding it to the article on them & on the Enquirer--here your argument that it would be good to know the conclusion is very much to the point.DGG (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My issue is not with Sandstein - I disagree with his view, but I think he was being responsible. I do have serious questions about the sourcing - not only the Times, but is the Irish Independent "News and Gossip" column seriously considered a reliable source? Because that's what we've got. Tvoz/talk 17:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

not enough to say he had an affair, not perhaps enough to say he was suspected of having one; enough to say that some blogs and tabloids published that he had. DGG (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD essay

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Psych

As you have noticed, I am a Wikipedia novice and, consequently, my article-writing skills are terrible at this point. I want to thank you for your comments because they will hopefully help me improve.

Per your message, I could use help with something. I would like to make a table for the article's alumni section so that one can organize it alphabetically by the name of the student, by the year in which a degree was received, by the type of degree that was received, and alphabetically by the name of the employing institution. Is it possible to do this? Would be able to help me with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyan Veda (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See HELP:Table and HELP:Sorting -- it's set up for you, no coding skills necessary, & works well. It can be done in html, but since, like a typical computer help page, they gives all the details & variations, you may want to read instead the excellent chapter in John Broughton's Wikipedia: the Missing Manual an O'Relly book. Parts are online free, Princeton may have the whole thing as an eBook, but the paper is I think the best format. DGG (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Psych

Thanks for the compliment. I have never been to Princeton. KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC) FWI, the compliment was for figuring out what was wrong with (one part of) the place from a laudatory article on it. DGG (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

NLP

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

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

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

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

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

Consistency

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

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

Stress

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

WoS

DGG, in the PROF draft you write that "Additionally, they list citations only from journal articles--citations to articles published in books or other publications are not included". I don't think this is cormpletely correct. WoS (I'm less familiar with Scopus) will list citations in journal articles TO books/bookchapters/etc. It will not list citations FROM books/etc. When I look up somebody's h-index and citations on WoS, I always run both "search" and "cited search" and join the results from the two if necessary, although I guess that's bordeline WP:OR. Anyway, I think you already know all this and perhaps you just went a bit too fast and wanted to write "Additionally, they list citations only from journal articles--citations from articles published in books or other publications are not included". Good work so far! --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

a-ha. I knew I would have to explain there more fully. WoS (and Scopus also) includes chapters in serial works as source items, in series like Advances in .... with a running title and sequential numbering, and does so by treating them as if they were journals. Their precedent for this is that Medline has always done just the same; this is really the only way to make sense with a series like Advances in Genetics, most or all of which do not bear individual volume titles. It still makes good sense with series like Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences even though each volume has an individual topic and title, but are almost universally known as a set. But one also gets such references as Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 888:1111, where the volume is actually the proceedings of a single miscellaneous conference printed in what is really only a publishers series. This sort of thing gives obvious problems to librarians, especially in print Most medical libraries in the US at least cope with this by actually shelving all these items as series, even the numbered publishers series. Most other libraries don't do it to that extent, and it gives problems to people who use more than one library. For the way I handled it see [19] and [20], both unfortunately not updated by my successor. They show almost all the possible variations. The data is in the online catalog, true, but much harder to interpret. Cited works in WoS, of course, includes everything referred to by a source item--in the case of Humanities Citation Index, even non-bibliographic items like paintings.

And there are a few more complications to add, like the Open Access citation indexes such as Citebase, and the so far unsolved problem of linking all the references to the different published and posted versions of an item--not to mention coping with inaccurate and ambiguous names. I recommend for completeness using WoS supplemented by GS and Scopus, and examining every individual item. The need to examine each item is why naĩve mechanized h-index counts are inaccurate. For distinguishing the clearly notable and the non-notable though, anything even roughly quantitative works. The true problem here, which does not of course both academics working in their own single field, is the wide variation in publishing patterns between different subjects. I've yet some more to say at the page for the draft. DGG (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

National repository

Hi, I noticed you are the creator of this article and I am wondering if it wouldn't be preferable to absorb it into Legal deposit. I assume most, if not all, "National repositories" have legal basis for their actions, so it should fit in. If I am correct, turning your article into a redirect page and adding any relevant details according to country would be the best course of action.

DGtal (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC) ; P.S. I like your screen name ;-)

there is only a remote connection. Legal deposit libraries are a by product of licensing under copyright law, by which all books that are published need to be deposited with the central authority. Originally this served primarily for the purposes of censorship, and governmental control over the publishing industry. The printers simultaneously made use of it to assure their exclusive right to print. and the development of copyright to protect literary property was very useful in the commercial development of the industry. The advantage of using these deposits to form a de facto national library followed, and remains the chief function of the deposits.

However, national repositories are not set up to provide either governmental control or copyright protection. Their purpose to to ensure access by all members of the community to work that has ben publicly paid for. . They can of course also serve as devices for governmental control over what is produced at a secondary level, but the primary level this control is asserted is at the provision of funding for the research. And, finally, the relationship of national repositories is quite deliberately to restrict somewhat the rights of the copyright holder, by requiring that there be some degree of free public access to the publications derived from public money

Naturally, the same institutions can operate both: the National Library of Medicine, the US Legal Deposit library for publications in the medical science, also serves, through its PubMed division, as a national repository for the papers produced as the result of publicly funded US NIH grants.

And, true, in a sense, there is a shared basis principle--that the public should have some access to published material. DGG (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are interesting, but some of your facts are only correct in some countries. I'll try to seperate the points. Some may be obvious to you, so be patient.

History: The first modern "legal deposit" (I'm ignoring the Library of Alexandria#Collection for now) was in 1537 in the Kingdom of France (see section "Similar Laws Around the World") and was indeed meant to create a national collection, though not for general public eyes. The next law, in Sweden 1661, was indeed meant for mainly censorship reasons.

Copyright and legal deposit: The relationship between these two legal terms is quite interesting. In some countries, like Monaco, there is a connection - if you fail to deposit, you don't gain copyright. In others, like Israel, these are largely seperate legal processes, so failing to deposit does not cost you your copyright.

The US case: The US law is quite unique (see Legal deposit#United States). Sending a published work to the United States Copyright Office guards your copyright, but it is not a legal requirment (theoretically, if you don't fear copyright infringement, there is no reason to send a copy). This office then distributes the copies between LOC, NLM, NAL etc. and some, unwanted ones, are donated to public libraries or exchanges (I can show you examples in my Israeli library). In other words, the US has no legal deposit (except for federal material). Pubmed does a great job of indexing articles (from the whole world, not only US), but the NLM is not a technically a legal deposit.

Global view: you treat the "national repository" as a place to allow "free public access" to publically spent money. This is a very noble view, mainly correct in the US, where the Federal Gov. relinquishes copyright, but is untrue in most countries (even democratic, not to mention totalitarian), where access is limited and Gov. copyright upheld.

Back to our discussion: Are "National repositories" equal to "legal deposit"? You are correct this is not always the case. Rethinking the point, I suggest that being a "National repository" is a classic job of any National library. Strangely, if you make a list of "classic NL jobs" almost no NL's actually meet all criteria, but that is not the issue here. Maybe the named articles should actually be absorbed into National library, but maybe not.

DGtal (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

all the more reason to keep them separate, when one considers the various possible combinations. Our articles need considerable expansion, both for current and historical practice. Your statement of the legal deposit situation in the US as you gave it here is obsolete, though the one in the article is technically correct, while confusing the two issues. There is a mandatory deposit, and has been since 1978, though that is technically independent of copyright.--as I found out to my considerable surprise a few years ago when I had to formally teach the subject. On the one hand. as you say, legal deposit & registration is necessary for the eligibility for statutory minimum damages, rather than only actual damages--an unregistered work is still under copyright, published or unpublished from the moment or creation. But there is nonetheless required deposit, since the law has been changed to the European practice: quoting from Copyright Circular 1, p.9 [21]

"Although a copyright registration is not required, the Copyright Act establishes a mandatory deposit requirement for works published in the United States. See the definition of “publication” on page 3. In general, the owner of copyright or the owner of the exclusive right of publication in the work has a legal obligation to deposit in the Copyright Office, within 3 months of publication in the United States, two copies (or in the case of sound recordings, two phonorecords) for the use of the Library of Congress. Failure to make the deposit can result in fines and other penalties but does not affect copyright protection.Although a copyright registration is not required, the Copyright Act establishes a mandatory deposit requirement for works published in the United States. See the definition of “publication” on page 3. In general, the owner of copyright or the owner of the exclusive right of publication in the work has a legal obligation to deposit in the Copyright Office, within 3 months of publication in the United States, two copies (or in the case of sound recordings, two phonorecords) for the use of the Library of Congress. Failure to make the deposit can result in fines and other penalties but does not affect copyright protection. " The detailed description is in Circular 7d., and the legal text in USC 17.

The current NLM deposit requirement is something different and additional to this--it's a technical regulation of the US NIH, under the Secretary's power to adopt tegularions for grants. This history of this is another matter entirely. The last thing we want to do is combine articles which are individually unclear..I will try to expand at least on the US legal deposit section above in the next few days. DGG (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You definitely suprised me. After you update the relevant articles here I will update the hebrew ones. DGtal (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

surprised me to. I found out a few years ago when I had to teach a course on copyright and discovered how out of date I was. DGG (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The strange thing is that, if I am correct, the LOC doesn't keep all the books it gets, so you could claim they aren't really doing their job. Strange, very strange. Regarding "National repository" - I guess there is no evil in having an article that describes the concept. Trying to give a complete list might be a waste of energy because it is usually done by the NL. Perhaps we should just give a few "out of ordinary" examples and say this is generally the job (and one of the defining tasks) of the NL, and this collection is limited since all deposit laws have limitations (not required under X copies or for certain types of publication). Maybe a mention of national archives can also clear the picture a bit. DGtal (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

LOC does not keep all the books it gets submitted to it, and never has. Popular myth entirely. There is a typical role of a national library, but many do more and some do less. This can & should be discussed is some detail library by library for the major countries. If I eveer get clear from the need to defend articles on notable academic proposed for deletion by people who don't think anyone without the Noble prize is notable, and defending articles about fiction from those who who think that the plot and characters are unimportant material, I will return to where I started, which is to improve the articles on librarianship. Fortunately, there are a number good librarians around here, but of course we need many more. DGG (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just note the line "In Australia, there is the " needs completion. I assume National Library of Australia is the answer. Unfortunately in Hebrew I seem to be the only librarian that comes often, at least my Library article is a FA, maybe it will help someone. DGtal (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

CSD vs. AfD

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

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

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

If an article is wrong, fix it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Birawer

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

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

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

Ecclesiastes 12:12

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

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

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

DGG - I completely support your position. The point here is not to have an exercise in the use of rhetorics but to operate on the basis of evidence and community feedback to make sure Wikipedia remains true to its purpose of providing useful information written by open and transparent consensus [22]. I'm disappointed to see Orange Mike continue to ignore the feedback from the community. I hope it's not the case for other articles he's been reviewing. Were you able to take the "Deletion Review" action you mentioned?

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

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

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

Matthias Kuhle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

archiving

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

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

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

Google Search Results

Hello - I created a page on the Ambassador of the UAE Yousef Al Otaiba. At the beginning, it showed up on the top 10 of any google search of the Ambassador's name. Then, all of a sudden, it disappeared. Do you know if it's something that I did with the page that made it not appear AT ALL in any Google search? If not, any idea what it is, or how to make it show up on Google searches of "Yousef Al Otaiba"? Any insight you could have would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. Uaeinfo75 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

curious. There's nothing i see that should have caused it--it's not even a name problem, because they list his father. I suggest you take a look at some comparable articles for other Ambassadors and see what you find. And try Yahoo and some other search engines also. Then I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Of course, what Google does is known to be impenetrable from outside, and, after all, our purpose is not to provide a feed of articles to them. Still it's curious. We did change some talk pages so they would not be indexed, but it should absolutely not have affected articles.DGG (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fictional (?) book

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

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

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

User:TTN

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

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

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

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

Creighton the Cretin

Just to clarify ... Creighton the Cretin was tagged for SD because there was no assertion of notability, which seems to be covered by WP:CSD. Am I missing something? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSD A7 --such deletion can only be done for the types of articles specified there--real people, real groups, companies, & web content--not for books, no matter how trivial they are. Use WP:PROD, or if that is contested, WP:AFD. the rationale is that somebody might recognize it as significant , so it needs to be looked at. Check first there are no book reviews that might show importance, though it does seem unlikely. DGG (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

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

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

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

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

Fish Info and Services

Hello, I noticed that you had input in a previus deletion discussion. The article looks like it may be deleted by the same group of people who started the first discussion, without imput from you or others who contributed previously. I thought you may liketo know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.82.69 (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC) fair enough. DGG (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your Comments on my Talk Page

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

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

prod

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

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

Great Work

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

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

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

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

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

Millennium Shakespeare

Could you please take a look at Millennium Shakespeare? In its current state, it is probably eligible for deletion as blatant advertising, but perhaps it could be salvaged. I can't find references for it, but I may be looking in the wrong places. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

amazing. Not just the pervasiveness of the advertising, but the degree of incoherence. As best as I can make out it's an illustrated young person's edition/ I can't salvage this. If their edition ever does get noticed, I shall probably come across the reviews, and then it will be time. DGG (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I see another ed placed & then removed a speedy tag. There's no sense in using prod--I suggest afd if major rewriting is not done quickly. DGG (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a bit of a mix-up, I was removing a CSD from another article and accidentally pasted it there as my next action while trying to remove more material by hitting paste rather than cut. I've trimmed most of the fat from the article but even with what appears to be the relevent details, I still cannot make heads or tails about what it is actually being discussed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just found a coherent listing on UK's amazon: [23], giving the series website, [www.millenniumshakespeare.com.]--and the worldcat listings for the 3 vols available so far are at [24]. A series rewritten as prose stories in simplified modern language for children , abridged, and with modern illustrations from various artists. -- just conceivably an important work; it will probably get reviews, even if it's really awful. The publisher -- and the editor-- do not seem to have published anything else of any significance. But one of the people listed for the King Lear is Jeffrey Kahan, an actual Shakespeare scholar of some importance & that is enough reason not to reject it out of hand. Probably does get an article. Excerpt at [25] to compare with the famous 19th century Tales from Shakespeare at [26] DGG (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there more i can do?

I found this AfD and became intrigued. the more i dug, the more I realized that this was a unique and notable project... even if it is never released... but I think it will be. The involvement of NASA and JPL in an animated/educational/scifi/adventure, with the involvements of a great many notable atars, make this one quite interesting. So I spent a few hours and turned this stub into this fully fleshed-out article. I would love your input towards additional improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

you're doing ok, but there may also be something in science magazines, even if not in google. Problem is finding them. DGG (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Online archives of SF literature and film magazines? NASA press releases? Hmmmmm... much to consider. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fiction Survey 2008

DGG, in today's ANI thread that Masem brought against me, you said "Constructive would be a discussion of what was actually wanted." In June I suggested to Masem a series of fill-in-the-blank questions we could ask the community. On October 14, 2008, I turned those questions into a survey in my userspace. On October 22, 2008, I solicited input at the proposals section of the village pump. Do you think such a survey would be potentially constructive? I would appreciate any feedback you may have at WT:FICT, or on the talk page of the survey. You're also free to edit the survey itself if you would like if you think any improvements should be made. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I shall take a look, but what would help most of anything you could do at this stage is to promise to stop reverting policy pages. Doing that sort of thing will lead to a deteriorating situation, not just for you, but more generally. DGG (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My general feelings about this is to use a combination article for all non-principal characters except for truly major or classic fiction. For those who thing WP:N meaningful in this context, individual ones in such a list need not be Notable--there is no such requirement for indiviual items of article content. WP:OR and WP:V do not apply, a suitable descriptive content can come from the fiction itself. As for keeping a separate article for such characters, at this point in discussion it does not really make sense until there are significant real sources. Let's work towards a compromise on these. I am reluctant to consider every character in every show individually here at AfD or other venue, if we can get a general rule. What gets a combination article, what a separate one, is basically just a matter of organization. To call it notability is a misunderstanding of what WP:N ought to be used for. The idea of a "separate article" being a big deal one way or another for closely related topics is very PRINTY, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Refining Articles for Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen

Greetings. You wrote on my Talk page:

I am not convinced that either of them is notable, and I fear the articles might well not hold at at AfD. Would you consider trimming them down to size according to our usual criteria? McKeen's ballet dancing is not encyclopedic material until he gives public performances that are reviewed, and a list of journal articles and book chapters is not usually considered appropriate content. I am planning to ask the opinion of the community, and it would help you to strengthen the articles as much as possible by eliminating things like this. The multiple press notices from local papers does not strike me as substantial independent content--is anything among there actually of significance? Have any of their books been published by a major publisher? How many of the articles are in peer reviewed journals? How many people have cited them? I want to give them a chance, and this sort of material will not make a good impression. DGG (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your fair-toned note. Of course I will be happy to trim the articles on both people. My goal is to have them in Wikipedia, and I don't want my inexperience or ineptitude to be in the way of this goal.

I will remove the dancing material as you suggested, as well as other items that fall into similar category

I will also reduce the Publications List to feature the most significant

You mention "trimming them down to size according to our usual criteria" ... can you recommend an article or two in Wikipedia that fall within this guideline of "usual criteria" so that I can use them as a guide in my trimming?

I will get to this today ... any further suggestions greatly appreciated William Meyer (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Our formal guidelines are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which dont don't help that much for the matters here, but in practice our criteria are best seen by our practice in similar articles--otherwise worded as what would people expect to find in an encyclopedia like ours. for example, looking at McKeen first, they typically want not every award, but only the major ones, and Boards of director and the like are only indicative of important if major organisations, and even then not much , unless something like Chairman or president. As some matters of style, adjust the references so they show the title and publication details, according to WP:CITE, enter translations of his work following the individual work translated, just saying also translated into _ and _ , and material such as "therapist in private practice" gets mentioned as text, not listed in a formal fashion in cv. Tryto get a little more of it into prose format. Can you how that McKeen is actually notable as an acupuncturist? I'll look at them all in a few days. The way I informally think of it, suppose I asked you, tell me what he's done--as conversation, not a grant application. DGG (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these suggestions. They are very helpful.

I am at work on both articles to incorporate your recommendations. I am in the process of switching from the Harvard notation system to the WP:CITE style; this is in process and will take a day or two.

If you have a moment, please glance at the article for Jock McKeen which has had most attention at this point. Am I on the right track? I want to do this properly. In particular, is Footnote #2 in the style you want? Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding my comments as I go to the same subsection on your Talk Page ... is this the style you prefer? Or would you like a new note at the bottom of your page each time I communicate?

I have worked on the Haven Institute article, and I believe I have the footnotes as you suggested now. I am still working on the Jock McKeen article and the Bennet Wong article, but I think I'm getting closer to what you suggested. I hope to have the articles presentable by the end of the day on November 18. William Meyer (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

see talk p. on McKeen, and on Haven Institute. There is no deadline, as long as you are making progress, You can let me know here when to look.DGG (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Refining AfD outcomes

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

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

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

episodes and chapters

(from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elementary School Musical (which was kept after the nomination was withdrawn)

Just a final comment. episodes are usually not like chapters! Chapters can not stand alone, in any sense whatsoever; they're basically pauses. Episodes in contrast are written to have some degree of internal closure, to be viewable by themselves--you won't know the background, you won't appreciate the motivations, but you will know at least the resolution or deliberate non-resolution of the particular incident. Look at the descriptions--this is almost always the case. In most good books, if you skip a chapter, you usually miss something necessary to understand the action and as things go on, you get more and more confused. Episodes are usually written with enough hooks backwards to explain the continuity. They more resemble & I think derive from the structure of comic books, which is why there is such an easy translation between those media. (There are of course other possibilities--the structure of those 19th century novels published as weekly chapters usually do not stand alone--they are not true episodes. ) The traditional form they most closely resemble is connected short stories. My favorite example is Wodehouse, with stories using the same repeated characters. Thats why we almost never have articles on individual chapters of novels--there are very few where it would make the least sense, even if a particular chapter is famous for its particular artistry or complexity of development. DGG (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Nova Publishers

I was checking some references in Kondratiev wave and ran into Nova and wondered "who would ever publish that?" After a little checking on google I got to our Nova Publishers article. The talk page is informative, if a bit long. The article itself is pretty uninformative. I would personally include the Stanford web page in our article - "reliable source" really does depend on the context, though perhaps not in our rules. Smallbones (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it again--and probably post something on the website. Assuming the article is a reliable source, and the key fact that would make it so is the comment from the editor of the Haworth journal, the question is whether a two journal sample is representative. Every commercial publisher has at least a few low quality journals. So it would need to be used carefully. I'll comment further there in a few days. DGG (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you review.....

Found an article at AfD that looked like it could be saved from deletion. I took THIS and turned it into THIS. I was still in process of expanding the article when the synopsis section got tagged as a copyvio. Per instructuion of the tag, and wishing to address the concern, I created a temp page and corrected the synopsis, basing the rewrite upon the official website and other sources, but not copying them. How do I getthe copyvio tage removed, since it has been addresed? I hate the thought that even seeing that might color an editor's coomments at the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The tag is correct, because you did copy it from IMdB, which is absolutely not acceptable. You have to write it yourself. In any case, most of the summaries there are teasers, not giving the actual conclusion. For this one, it says " Cody manages to cast Jasmine, but at great personal cost". A proper plot summary for an encyclopedia would explain just what happens. Thats the difference between a TV or movie guide and an encyclopedia. When you remove the copied material, you can remove the copyvio tag. Unless you have seen the movie, or have a good review that actually discusses the plot, you will not be able to write a really good summary. (Note that most newspaper reviews also are written as teasers). For the moment, try rewriting what you have in your own words entirely, as if you were describing the plot to someone. do it without looking at the existing text.DGG (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the information came directly from the film's official website... but exists in other incarnations.. IMDB being one. The copyright is not IMDB, but the filmmakers'. Being in contact with them, I could easily get explicit permission for it to be used on Wiki... if the original text were to be kept. The temp article was moved to HERE. No doubt the tag is correct... but it had me create a temp article in a location that was incorrect and which was moved by another editor to a snadbox. I have since visited the article talk page and the AfD to clarify the Temp's new location. Now... I have heeded your advivce and written this: "As a child, Cody Weever (Chad Eschman) grew up pampered, spoiled and loving films. His mother (Diane Tasca) gave in to all his childish whims. As an adult, Cody decided he wanted to produce and direct his own film, but his mother decided that this was one whim too many. He sulked and groused when she refused to fund his endeavour. His own maunderings about his project gave rise to rumour in Buck Valley that Hollywood heiress Jasmin Darnell (Christina Rosenberg) would be starring in Cody's film. The rumour is untrue, but starstruck residents begin to confront Cody, and one by one lobby to particpate in the film. Cody falls victim to his own ego and ambition, allowing himself to be distracted and encouraged by the townsfolk." Now what? Do I need to get permission to even write about the film? To include any or all informations that the filmmakers ultimately own no matter where else it might be shared? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

as you see, it is almost always in such cases less trouble to rewrite it than to get permission. But there is no need for a plot summary if the film is considered not notable, and this depends on substantial reviews and the like. Whether the references provided show notability will be decided at the AfD. I doubt the presence or absence of a summary will be decisive there. My personal opinion is that local press notices about the local production of a film are irrelevant to notability, just as local interviews with a local author are irrelevant to the notability of a book--they are not truly independent third party, but courtesy publicity for local figures. I cannot tell whether the consensus will agree with me, and I will abide the result for the article. If the immediate consensus on this and an unrelated article with similar issues does accept such material, I think that we will need a more general discussion of guidelines. Using Wikipedia for publicity is in my opinion a downwards step for this as for any other the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, the author who created the original article is an editor with a history and no connection with the film. And for myself, I never heard of the film before the AQfD and the only person in it I have ever evebn heard of is Dustin Diamond. So neither Wiki or the filmmaker are using Wiki to "advertise" theri film. However, I do worry about many of the Future Film articles written by wiki-based fans or wiki-savy production personel. As for notability... I have answered at AfD... and will not be upset if the article does not remain, as if/when sources meet anyone's concerns of WP:NF and WP:GNG, it will come back. But here's a question. Is there something in WP:NF that mandates a reliable source must be worldwide or countrywide or statewide? Or if citywide is acceptable, does it mandate the city must be as large as New York or Los Angeles rather than Palo Alto? Tough Catch-22, as any source available online has a potential world-wide circulation. Just playing devil's advocate. However the article survives Wiki, it will be well sourced or it won't be here at all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The LA/NY question has been asked before. it's not that they are large cities. it's that they are the two national centers for the entertainment industries. The general rule is WP:LOCAL. In practice the applicability is defined by the community at AfDs, and tends to vary unpredictably from article to article even more than other things there. I'm not an oracle. And I tend to be somewhat of a deletionist about local institutions, because they shade off imperceptibly downwards. The accidents of sourcing on the web for local institutions depend on what happens to be searchable on google and google news. Once the various G projects have gotten all old newspapers and all current ones that let them, we will really have to face up to the inadequacy of the General Notability Guideline as a criterion. I call it Notability by Accident. I'd accept any consistent agreed upon policy as better than that, if it pays respect to the nature of the subject. The critical thing for me is not inclusion per se, it's the need for Wikipedia to be free from use for advertising. DGG (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedies

Alright, I'll try to slow it down a little. As for that particular article, I didn't think that every professor was notable enough for Wikipedia. Obviously, if there was something distinguishing that they were involved with, or were of particular importance to the school, then they would be notable enough. However, at the time I tagged the article, it simply stated that she was a professor at M.I.T. and was in a certain department. I didn't think this merited having her own article. If you could get back to me about this I would appreciate it. TheXenocide (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks for correcting my tag on Eric st-cyr. I'm not sure why I put a nonsense tag. Looking at that article, I wasn't sure exactly what was wrong, but I knew there was something wrong. TheXenocide (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just came to leave you a note on this, David. It wasn't nonsense, but it was a copyvio and I've deleted as such. No objections, of course, to the article being re-created as a non-copyvio if St. Cyr is notable. StarM 06:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks. Don't know why I forgot to check for that about StCyr. DGG (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Xenocide: Basically, being a full professor at a internationally recognized highest-level research university like MIT generally indicates an overwhelming probability of being notable, according to the WP:PROF requirement for being an authority in one's field. Places like that don't make such appointments otherwise, and to get there one must pass exceptionally stringent review by both that and outside universities, meeting the third party requirement. The basic standard is being sufficiently an authority as to attract the best possible students and other faculty to the department and the university, and their judgment on this is somewhat better and much more searching than we can do at Wikipedia. Such standing is invariably shown by multiple highly cited publications in first-rate journals, and such citing is another indication of status as an authority as recognized by independent authorities. Now, this may or may not be the case with ranks lower than that, or at lesser colleges & for them, we try to make a judgment if the record shows such recognition. . --DGG (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help. I appreciate you being so understanding, I'm still getting used to all these policies. TheXenocide (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

bit of advice needed

You strike me as a methodical editor - for a while, Scientific research in Canada has sat on my watchlist - I look at it and look at it and then my eyes hurt and I turn away. Any suggestions? sub-articles? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This essay does have a problem: it's written to a different, albeit somewhat higher standard than ours. The level of synthesis is higher (for example, the selection of who are the prominent scientists), the bibliography more exhaustive than necessary, the writing is very dry, and it seems a little long. Actually, it isn't particularly long, but unlike most WP article, it's straight text. It's already a summary of what could be expanded for each individual section. And it actually started as a split from Science and technology in Canada. I think it does derive from an essay, probably by User:Jeff Atkins. I suggest conferring with him. DGG (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio tag

Hiya.. I'd tagged that article as obvious copyvio due to the large amount of quacking in the vicinity; the obviously cnp'd sentences with unformatted ref numbers and the editor in question has put up copyvio work (which may have been his own) before. // roux   18:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about the origin--but I will not delete via speedy unless you find the published copyright source--even so, based on contributions to other articles, the author is a Professor of Information Science who has been inserting copies of his work "Core concepts of information science" --and possibly other publications, into WP and giving us licenses for it. See for example Talk:Cognitive authority Now, if this is from a published article not the test, he may or may not own the copyright. Even if it were student work, the more usual case, I can think of a number of scenarios by which this would not be a violation: If it is in fact his own work, it may not be a copyright violation. for example, he may have originally submitted it to class, and then posted it here, in which case he would still have owned the copyright and his release of it to us under GFDL would be valid. He might have posted it here, and then published it--in which case it would not be a violation either, no matter what copyright notice might be on the published work, for he would have previously given us an irrevocable license. Only if he published it prior to posting it here would it be a violation. And even if he copied it from another source, it might conceivably not be a violation, it it were published in a public domain source, such as an open access journal. Knowledge organization (management) is not really a suitably written Wikipedia article in any case, but that is not a reason for speedy. DGG (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, fair enough. My general feeling about copyvio is 'shoot first, get explanations later' due to potential legal issues. I'd rather see a slightly mistaken speedy and undelete than have WMF served with papers, y'know? // roux   06:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

my atitude is different. We should absolutely not include known provable copyvio. Our reputation for doing this is important. Our reputation for care here is harmed when we also exclude things that just might possibly be copyvio, because then it implies we are not carefully examining situation. Same as my view on BLP: strict when it applies, but narrow to only when it applies. DGG (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, agree to disagree then. // roux   10:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A cruel speedy

I put SierraSil up for speedy or prod deletion, although it does have some mentions in sources (though the news ones are mainly press releases or industry publications of believers in such things.) I was not sure about the speedy, though the tone was quite advertisingy. Now the creator has messaged me saying I should have helped him write a non-advertisment version. I was wondering if you would give me your opinion on whether the subject's notable etc. enough for an article; would the subject pass AfD for instance in your opinion? Sticky Parkin 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. There's a message at the top of the edit window of this page from July, I wasn't sure if you realised it was still there so I thought I'd let you know. Sticky Parkin 16:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Long beach Motor inn deletion

The page should not be deleted on the terms of A7 (group) due to the following criteria: 1. The organization is notable as it is not a part of chain or franchise (Notable) 2. The organization is cited to show unusual business practices (worthy of being noted). 3. The article uses credible references and has appropriate links to verify information such as newspaper articles. Primary sources and secondary sources are listed. 4. The article follows a neutral point of view without advertising.

I am new to wiki, and need some instructions (if possible) to know how to recreate it. Thank you. --Tomblights00 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Tombstone00--Tomblights00 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a copy of the original from an adminstrator --Tomblights00 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00--Tomblights00 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the edit history of this page, and I have no intention of undeleting it. Under guise of advertisement of non-notable motel, the article appears to have been used for purposes of defamation. I do not advise re-creation, as i can think of no way to make it into an acceptable article. DGG (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I contest your argument that the article on both arguments of "guise of advertisement" and also "defamation". First, the article is posted with a neutral point of view required by Wikipedia. The article give facts without any opinions. References are clearly posted. Secondly, i contest the article is defamatory. I point to the fact that your contention of the article being irrevelant on point #1 and point #2 contradict itself. If the article was "in guise of advertisment" however point #2 is "defamation" is contradictory. Again, the article is written from a neutral point of view, without bias. --Tomblights00 (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00--Tomblights00 (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. The article gave a description of a perfectly ordinary non notable motel with nothing to indicate notabilty, and then quoted information casting discredit on the way it operates, and more particularly on the owner. But there is no indication that the material, even if true, would make it notable. The fact that it was abusive could be dealt with by removing the negative material, but there remainder of the article would serve no encyclopedic purpose, being only a directory entry for a business without any claim to notability. The material could therefore be deleted equally well as A7, article on a business without any indication of notability, G11, promotional only (if the negative material were removed), or G10, page whose primary purpose is to attack the subject. Since the article also attacked the owner/operator, it also failed the test of WP:BLP, which prevents the insertion of poorly sourced negative information about people, or even sourced controversial information about people who are non notable, under any guise, and even in user space. This is a matter that supersedes all other considerations. The article presently transferred to your user space will therefore be deleted if you cannot persuade the community in a deletion review to restore the main article (deletion review is the only available route). You are in my opinion acting in bad faith to use WP for the dissemination of negative publicity, an apparently widely shared dislike of the manners of the non-notable owner. No matter how justified the claim might be, this is not the place for it. I warn you that if you continue doing so, your account is likely to be blocked, but I give you time to ask for a deletion review--though I am quite sure that it will not succeed. DGG (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedram Hamrah

Hi, I've been editing an article on Pedram Hamrah (possibly an autobio, but I am not sure about that). At first I put a notability tag on it, later I removed it again as I thought notability was sufficiently established. Now I start doubting again: Hamrah is instructor at Harvard and is also listed as postdoctoral fellow with another lab there, and that seems pretty junior for being notable. I would appreciate if you could have a quick look at the article and let me know what you think. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: [27] he is listed as a current postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Reza Dana, who is the senior author on some of Hamrah's most widely cited papers. --Crusio (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

People nowadays stay as postdocs for longer and longer times, and it is possible that they may do sufficient important work there to become notable as an authority in their field--I am aware of some people who might be considered such. He's in such a group of permanent postdocs, often called associated researchers. Normally, someone at his level, 12 years past his boards, would have a regular faculty position, but possibly he'd rather stay at Harvard than have one elsewhere. One has to go then by the publications -- he's about the level where one would expect of an excellent assistant professor in the subject-- 20 peer reviewed papers in Scopus, citation counts 80, 77, 73, 47, 43, all in first-rate journals. Even in medical science, where citation counts are high, this is pretty good. The next step is to see just who is citing him & what they say about his work. This can best be evaluated by someone who knows the actual subject. I'd concentrate on the spammier ones. I think spam is more the danger to our credibility than people of borderline notability. DGG (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right! Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Merges at SASTRA University

I see you've suggested a few merges over at SASTRA University. Please provide a rationale for these here as per WP:MM. Thank You!_(talk)raghuvansh^(contribs) 21:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thing - please reply at my talk page, because it's very likely that I'll forget to follow this up otherwise! Thanks again._(talk)raghuvansh^(contribs) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page for the article on the universityDGG (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Addressing Comments re: Bennet Wong

I appreciate your detailed response about the Bennet Wong article. I have taken your comments into consideration and worked on both the Wong article, and the Jock McKeen article. I have replied to your specific suggestions on the Discussion Page for Bennet Wong (and copied the same note to the Discussion page for Jock McKeen).

I look forward to your feedback. Many thanks. William Meyer (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

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

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

User:TTN

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

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

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

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

Example of AFD renomination

Regarding our earlier discussion about quick renominations on AFD, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magic Voyage (2nd nomination). The article is about some made-for-DVD cartoon released in Europe, which passed an admittedly brief AFD discussion about a month ago, and has been renominated by someone who seems to want to discount the previous AFD. I think it really sets a bad precedent. In my reply, I suggest coming back in 6 months if the article isn't improved by then. Just passing it along for your interest. Cheers! 23skidoo (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Librarian franchise

Hey, because you are a real life librarian and because you do work on fictional subjects here, I thought you should be aware of this series (it's no Indiana Jones, but decent enough, I guess). Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your spirited defence of my article, DGG. How could I improve it to hopefully convince more persons that it is worth keeping? Obviously the headers/overall formatting should be changed, but I'm unsure of how. And would wikifying the references do much good, you think? Thanks for your help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review You Voted in Favor of Relisting/Overturn

FYI, you voted to either re-list or overturn this article [28] after a 2nd AfD deletion. Unfortunately the article now, is incomplete with sources from the state when it was set for a 2nd AfD, many source links, found on this page, [29] are now deleted. This is unfair and perhaps you can help get this straight and give Wikipedia a better name for what it stand for. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Librarian franchise

Hey, because you are a real life librarian and because you do work on fictional subjects here, I thought you should be aware of this series (it's no Indiana Jones, but decent enough, I guess). Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your spirited defence of my article, DGG. How could I improve it to hopefully convince more persons that it is worth keeping? Obviously the headers/overall formatting should be changed, but I'm unsure of how. And would wikifying the references do much good, you think? Thanks for your help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My A1/G1 reviews

Hey DGG, you have a solid reputation when it comes to deleting things... I've actually seen other admins refer people to you for questions. Thus, I was wondering if you could take a look at my latest two essays/reviews. I've reviewed the deletion of about 45 A1 and G1 articles, and wanted to know if you agreed with my interpretation of the rules/conclusions on those 45 items. Links to the reviews can be found on my talk page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

in the works. I disagree with about 1/3 of yours, usually not in a critical way. The real problem is not the wrong class of speedy, but rescuable articles. I just did 10 mixed ones from WP:CSD, and found at least 4 possible articles -- but this was a batch from which all the easy ones had been done previously. DGG (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

An offer of help, other inclusionists, and suggestions

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zabat

A friendly question on your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zabat. Could you clue me in as to why you think AfD is the wrong venue to discuss this deletion? Just trying to figure out what you're seeing that I'm missing. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of what to do with the article does not belong on afd. To nominate for deletion is an assertion that neither a merge nor a redirect would be suitable. If one wants to delete, and it would appear that it might be, one should present some argument directed to that, but no such argument is presented or claimed. In fact, the exact opposite is said in the nomination "does not deserve any separate coverage" (my italics) Thus, its the proposal for a merge--and a merge would make sense for the article in my opinion also--I agree with TTN there and would support such a merge in a discussion--as I have frequently told him in similar cases. But merges on this topic are at least potentially controversial. and need discussion, if only to determine how much to merge. The discussion of these would properly take place on the article talk page (or the talk p of the article proposed to merge to, or a workgroup.) Certainly it has often been argued that a merge or a redirect is not suitable, either because the content is already merged, or that it is too trivial for even a redirect--but no such assertion was made. Please take a look at the nominators talk page, to see his frank exposition of his intentions and plans for removing such articles by any device whatsoever, no matter how ill suited--and his current pursuit of the method of removal by redirects without prior discussion or consensus or the attempt to gain such--actions for which he had previously received a topic ban. DGG (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I didn't get that out of it, but in rereading it, I can see that interpretation. (And just reinforces my opinion that we need a central, well visited place to discuss controversial redirects.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, it was for edit warring over such redirects. WP:BRD is still perfectly fine to utilize. I really don't know how everyone gets so confused over it. TTN (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you like BRD. I take it you wont mind if all of them are R'd. Remember my willingness to support you in good merges if you need support, for ones you ask about first. DGG (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If they're reverted, they'll just be put up for deletion, which I feel to be the only way to effectively deal with articles that don't need to be merged. TTN (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how a "no consensus" close somehow translates into a go ahead and "redirect" (see [30], [31], and [32]) without gaining consensus for such action on the article's talk page after the AfD closed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

DGG, don't take this the wrong way...but are you actually reading the articles and voting on their merits as stand alone subjects or just voting because it's TTN? The above statement you made there, as much as I'd like to assume good faith, seems to imply it's just because "it's him" and he didn't clear it with you first. [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lying Bastard This AfD seems to support that too], in which the source cited was actually a very brief mention of a ship in a genre where such ships are commonplace.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

in general, about 90% of the articles proposed for deletion by TTN are indeed articles with serious problems, about which something should be done. In some cases, its merely a rewrite to encyclopedic standards; in mot cases, its a merge of some amount of the content; sometimes, if the content is already there sufficiently, its a redirect. Occasionally the subject is so utterly minor there shouldn't even be a redirect--and when I see one such, i normally do go and !vote delete. But In general, when I say keep and discuss merge elsewhere, or the like, i do not mean that the article should be kept in its current form. I mean just what I say, that afd is not the place, and that the first step is to not delete the article, and the second is to discuss how to merge it. As I mention above, I am perfectly willing to help support good merge proposals if hey run into opposition. I've usually not been asked, because the proposals that run into opposition are usually not good proposals, but proposals eliminating most or all of the content, which i would rarely support. That in my opinion is probably why TTN has to go to afd for them, because he is trying to enforce under threat of deletion what he would not be able to get consensus for if presented straight-out.

for the batch of articles on these fictional weapons, I think the articles are , as they stand, inappropriate for Wikipedia as separate articles, and I usually remember to say as much every time. They are fairly well done, but as written out in full, they belong on a specialized wiki. But some sort of summary of them on a suitable combination page seems to me suitable for Wikipedia. And that's what I mean by my comments there.

the reason I try to comment on every one is because if people do not bother to comment, it appears like the deletion proposal has consensus. It is wrong to swamp process and hope people get tired of reply. It is much easier to give a list of a dozen common things frequently wrong with articles, without specifics, than give an adequate defense against each. I find doing so an utter nuisance. There are better ways of doing this, but they require compromise. . The proof to me that the nominator(s) will presently not accept compromise is, that when they do get merged to list articles, the lists are then nominated for deletion. If they are merged then to the main article, that part of the content is removed. Obviously there is a basic disagreement about how much detail on fictional content is appropriate in wp. Either one side will drive the other out, or we can compromise. I do not expect to totally like whatever the compromise will be, but I don't expect to. I have yet to see from those wanting to cut back on such content a willingness to negotiate a compromise in good faith. DGG (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you make of all of these nominations for articles in actually different states (some have sources, some do not, yet they all get the same no sources claim) and with different degrees of notability (some are more notable than others and yet they all are commented on as if their notability is equal) all having the exact same wording in the nominations? Do you think the individual merits of these articles are being considered when articles with different degrees of sourcing and notability get the same copy and paste nomination "rationale"? The best is the whole "no current assertion for future improvement of the article"; anything that is not a hoax can be improved. Do we need someone to say (assert) somewhere that he/she will improve an article explicitly or is it generally understood that Wikipedia is a work in progress and thus pretty much all articles are expected to be improved over time? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring !votes

I really appreceiate that you not remove my !votes in AFDs like you did here. I have re-added my !vote but left out my request that you focus on the article and not the nom. However, that doesn't mean I do not think that you are. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not deliberately remove your comments; I apparently accidentally deleted them while trying to fix the inadvertent punctuation in my own. Please AGF, both about the punctuation and the apparent deletion. Why on earth would I remove someone else's vote? The more I might disagree with it, the more I would want it there so i could argue against it. :) I make the strongest arguments that I think fit the situation, and sometimes people get bothered by that, but when have I ever played tricks?

As for the matter you raise, it is appropriate to mention when a nomination seems part of an increasingly disruptive pattern. I am not one for initiating formal process. DGG (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Corps

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

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

Speedy keep

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

I have elsewhere commented just now [33] that the reason for speedy keep should be a "clearly mistaken nomination": or something of the sort, without implying anything about good faith. Except in extreme circumstances, we can't really judge people's motivations, and they are not necessarily relevant. for example, I readily admit that the motivation of one of my principal opponents in some recent discussions is their good faith and honest and forthright desire to reduce the Wikipedia coverage of fiction, which they in all honesty think excessive. That they are totally wrong and will destroy one of the key positive features of Wikipedia does not affect their good faith.

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

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

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

Wikipedia:SOGOFIXITYOURSELFINSTEADOFDELETING

Hey, what was the content of the above? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

it's just an expansion of SOGOFIXIT. So go fix it yourself instead of deleting,which is I think self-explanatory.

Okay, just curious what the "joke is over" deletion rationale was (admin who deleted hasn't edited in a week, so thought I might ask you). Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

what afd is that?DGG (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Prod removal from Jorj X. McKie

Ok, I've put a {{mergeto}} tag, but I frankly don't expect much from that. In my experience those "merge" tags can sit on articles for years, without anybody doing anything. (Look for instance at Keila Jedrik which had a similar mergeto tag for a year without anybody doing anything!) In my humble opinion, when one comes across these completely unreferenced, in-universe pieces, the only thing is to delete them. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

but all you have to do is go back after a week if there are no objections and merge it yourself. I think you can do it even as an anon, but there are a number of advantages in getting a user ID. If you have problems with it, ask me for assistance. I m always ready to support a merge which leaves a suitable amount of material in the combined article--the only ones I object to are one that areconcealed deletions. DGG (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Transformers

We seriously need a policy that explains exactly when, where and how much primary sourcing is acceptable or for that matter how much plot detail is too much (that would deal with this whole drama immediately). That said: the main issue with the articles is that they were based entirely on primary sources. If you can improve on those, by all means do. I think undoing the merge would be very unproductive. Try referencing material and merging it along until the time it becomes to large and needs its own entry so you can split off because of space concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I have sometimes been tempted to actually edit these articles, but have usually had the sense to refrain--it would be an interesting experiment in using general skills to work on a subject concerning which I am totally ignorant--except for what I've learned by watching these articles. An editor in its real world meaning, after all, is supposed to be able to do just that. (The most I've done is condense some plot summaries here and there, while hoping that I'm not accidentally leaving out the key part that the naive original editor failed to emphasize.) This leads to a reasonable question, which is why then do I care about these articles at all? Two reasons: An encyclopedia is supposed to be encyclopedic and cover more than any one persons interests--keeping in mind the range of people who use Wikipedia. But the reason I even get to this topic at all, is because I discovered attempts to try to delete the relatively detailed articles on the classic fiction and sci-fi I really do care about (some of what I call classics, to be sure, is what some other people think as junk.)

almost as you say, though, we need a guideline (I doubt we will ever have the greater consensus needed for policy). In the meantime, let's not pretend we already have one, and its the one we individually want. I doubt we ever will have even a guideline, unless we compromise. I appreciate being given advice about what will satisfy some opponents, but I think some will not accept articles on fictional details regardless of sourcing. They just don't think it's worthy of an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Walkley

I was surprised when you called the Quarterly Essays "just pamphlets" ([34]) and notice that at least one has won a Walkley Award: Last Drinks: The Impact of the Northern Territory Intervention. Johnfos (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

check the page count. They are under 100 pp. long. Even a pmphlet can of course be notable. That one of the series has received a significant award may make it notable; it certainly does not in any way make others in the series notable. The main indication of notability in the article is that it was on the same topic as other books by the author. DGG (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of a pamphlet winning a Walkley... Johnfos (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Septimus Heap (character)

Hi, the page Septimus Heap (character) previously when i created you said that it didnot have real world significance like critical reception etc. I couldnot find any reception at that time.. but now i have found quite a few critical receptions for the characters and their real world notability. Will it be fruitful to create a separate character page now? waiting for your reply "Legolas" (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

write it in user space. Start a page: User:Legolas2186/Septimus Heap (character). Then people can look at it. DGG (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation?

Please see the discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009#Remove speculation.—Markles 15:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)