User talk:DGG/Archive 19 Aug. 2008

Croatian Nation

Problem about speedy deletion of article Croatian nation and ethnic cleansing is now solved ?--Rjecina (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

about to eat dinner--back in an hour. Place the right tag on G4, giving the afd involved. DGG (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, deleted. since there are many possible variations of the title, I did not protect against further attempts--let me know if they occur, or just put on the tag, giving the link to he original afd. DGG (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

plus and minus

what are you talking about --- {{delvote}} & {{forvote}} ??^MY♥_INchile 01:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, see the discussion resulted in deleting them as G4, [1]DGG (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I'd actually started a discussion about icons with recommendations on the AfD talk page. It's the way it's done on the Spanish Wikipedia and it seems like a good idea to me. The iconified recommendations are all in templates anyway, so we could possibly just comment out the images then "flip the switch" when they become widely enough adopted to be considered a standard approach if that makes it easier. What do you think? Vquex (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

what I think is that they are a truly terrible idea, since they emphasize the wrong thinge entirely. AfD is not a vote. Further, the opportunity t o qualify as "Speedy keep" in bold face is highly advantageous. Not to mention they make the page look awful. DGG (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the discussion resulted in deleting them as G4, [2]DGG (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Times

Hi - I saw your comment here about the declining standards of The Times. I'm consistently impressed at how crappy and tabloidy their coverage is. For me, it goes all the way back to their promotion of AIDS denialism in the early 90's. The science editor of the Sunday Times decided that HIV was harmless, AIDS in Africa a myth, HIV tests unreliable, and heterosexual AIDS nonexistent, and beat the drum relentlessly. Finally Nature actually called them out, saying their coverage of HIV/AIDS was "unbalanced", "selective", "seriously mistaken, and probably disastrous" - a pretty unusual step for a scientific journal of that stature to take ([3]). Ever since then, nothing they print has surprised me, though it's disappointing to see how much credibility still attaches to the name. MastCell ^Talk 22:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

can you find some references? we cant be the first two people who noticed. The place to add them would be the article on the newspaper. DGG (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF draft

Do you have more comments on the WP:PROF revision draft? Your last message Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) from 3 days ago indicated that you had more comments forthcoming. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

general comments today, more tomorrow. DGG (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing copyvio

Usually I nominate an article for speedy deletion as copyvio because the underlying topic is non-notable, as a shortcut. (Lallsons was an exception because of the scale.) If the topic is notable I take other steps to preserve the article but get rid of the copyvio. So don't get angry if you work to remove the copyvio and I then nominate it for deletion. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I never get angry at that, or I'd be angry a good deal of the tim at someone or other. If I speedy-delete, people sometimes complain, if I decline, people sometimes complain. Any admin who doesn't have their actions complained about sometimes is doing only the easy and most obvious ones. In fact, I follow the same guidelines as you--if I dont think it might possibly be worth the work, I dont do it. I thought the Malankara Catholic Association‎ might possibly be a plausible article, but the community will decide. But obviously individual views on that will differ, hence AfD. I hope, in my turn, that you do not get angry when I turn down your nominations. DGG (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Naw, I worry that you are overworked, and just wanted to assure you that I Google the heck out of every article I put a speedy, prod or AfD tag on. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

AccessMyLibrary

Do you know how to navigate this site? I did a thirty day free trial, but the email they sent me to confirm my account doesn't work, and I can't find a page to resend it or log in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Never tried it. I tend to beware free trials, web or otherwise. DGG (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: another bot error

Due to the severity of this, letting you know I have replied. Thanks, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 07:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Shelley Batts

Thanks for your thoughtful comments re: AfD for the above - a good point that renaming it after the blog might be more appropriate. I have to say, though, that her blog rates pretty unfavourably when you compare it to the few blogs listed at , which all seem to have received major plaudits and have been mentioned by other (non-blog) sources. The 'controversy' which made her (slightly) famous is less notable when you consider that it's not actually a case of 'big publisher vs. small blogger'. It might merit a footnote in an article on fair use, at best - but I think it would swiftly get replaced by much better and better-documented examples. I'm saying this here and not on AfD though as I'm beginning to think I might have a bee in my bonnet.. Thanks again!Hopsyturvy (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit quite frankly I do not know how to deal with blogs in terms of Wikipedia articles, and I don't think anyone else does, and most arguments about them really come down to personal knowledge. Interesting that the archetypal web source -- Wikipedia -- cannot really deal with the web in terms of notability. Let me look at Science Blogs again with respect to their standards. DGG (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Shmarya Rosenberg

I've expanded the article to the best of my ability, and added some verifiable references. Message me if theres anything more I can do to clean up the article. Cheers --Avi15 (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Query about article perfection

I saw that you did some editing on my article on Rebtel saying that there are additional outside citations needed. Just wanted to let you know that I have corrected these so feel free to have a look. Please bear in mind that I'm trying to learn WP and I'm quite new here. I appreciate your patience and please let me know here what additional changes I must make to the article. drewie123 talk 13:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If the two trade journals you cited are known as independent reliable sources, you'll be OK. For the award, try to cite it directly, not through the Rebtel site. I did some clean-up. Conciseness is a virtue here; and see our Business FAQ. DGG (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Habitability

Human Habitability
We started this article before in the Encyclopedia and it got deleted as it was because it was incomplete and because of the bias of the territorial editors of the Planetary Habitability article. So we are starting again and are hoping to get help with more referencing and support of the major points from the published paper "Habitable Planets for man" by Stephen H Dole and Issac Asimov. If you know anyone who would like to assist in editing or finding referencing please pass this on. thanks GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dole (& the later ed, dole & asimov) are of course not papers, but books, and since they are well known books they therefore will have book reviews. Your local librarian can help you find them. DGG (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Habitable Planets for Man" - (Free PDF here) by Stephen H. Dole, for RAND 1964.
• "Planets for man" - (Free PDF here) - Stephen H Dole & Issac Assimov, for RAND 1964.

Yeah, thanks bunches - Paper, Book, PDF, whatever man, that was a really ignorant thing to write when someone extends an intvitation to you to help with an article. don't let me waste anymore of your time. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I told you that since they were in fact published as books, there would be reviews on them, and that the reviews would clearly demonstrate the notability and provide material usable in the article. I pointed them out as sources about whicvhyou seemed to be unaware. I think you must have misunderstood. Did you perhaps expect me to go find them for you also? I'll guide you, but that's about it, when you seem to be pretty competent yourself. DGG (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage notices

Heyas! In a recent DR, you made this observation:

Many users will prefer to bring things here--for some reason they tend to be scared of asking admins directly, especially when the admin has a talk page notice that says "Do not ask me to help resolve disputes (see the dispute resolution process). Administrators are for immediate technical help only." and another "If you're here to request an admin action, consider using the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard instead." These somehow do not seem designed to be encouraging.

Mm, sadly, I have to agree. They were (honestly) intended to discourage discussion of disputes that I'm not actually part of, since I do a number of edit-war page protections. There was one page in particular that directly caused the issue where a user (KP Botany, since RTV'd) who decided that ... against my protestations, protected page policy, et cetera ... that my page protection of the other side's revision meant that I preferred that version. Interestingly enough, I didn't even read the page before protecting it, I simply wanted the sides to stop edit-warring.

Now, if there's a dispute with me, then obviously I'm going to do my part in trying to resolve it, but I don't get involved in too many content disputes here. I'd rather say "Um, okay, you win" and wander off to do something else typically. :)

If you'd like to suggest an alternate, simple wording that is both welcoming and makes it absolutely clear that I do not intend to play referee in someone else's dispute, please (please!) do so. I could use the help, I think. Kylu (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

as you probably noticed from the length of this, my style about encouraging even angry talk is a little different :) I prefer giving advice to using the tools. But I see nothing in your recent log that makes it necessary to have such warnings. For PP, you simply repeat the policy and do not need to get into argumeents or feel bad about them when they do occur. I think you were over-reacting to one excellent but stubborn editor. Though you were right of course about PP policy, KP was one of our best science article writers ever. I miss her every time a question in her field or in science generally comes up here. After all, I see from your talk page archives that when people do ask, you are helpful. There is no technique for wording a keep out notice in a friendly way--all you can do is suggest they read the policy first, and have a standard answer ready. DGG (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Also, thanks for the link to the Business FAQ at the top there! You find something new on this site every day. :) Kylu (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

:) :) DGG (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Gangster prods...

(RE: [4])

No, I hadn't... I was going by the article alone, as there were quite a few that were only a paragraph or two long. If the basis of the article was "He was a gangster, he robbed this place, he killed this guy, he was killed.", it got prodded. Sources or not, if there wasn't anything in the article that showed any semblance of notability, it was prodded. Just being a gangster and/or getting killed is not notable, otherwise we're going to be overrun with little kiddies thinking they're badasses and writing an article about themselves just because they're "gangsters" and might have been mentioned in a newspaper article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

then I shall have to check myself before deleting them, as an admin is supposed to do. How can one tell otherwise if they might in fact have had a notable criminal career? (Agreed that the first responsibility is the people who are writing these inadequate articles). But have you found us much bothered with minor criminals cited wanting to get their bios into Wikipedia?DGG (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Association for Research on Ethnicity and Nationalism in the Americas

Could you do me a favour and take a look at this? I see no reason why this article should be deleted, as it is exactly the same kind as one that just received good article status. – SJL 17:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to explain there why it is not yet notable. DGG (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. – SJL 18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nicholas Rockefeller

Hi DGG, Thanks for the kind words. I was actually the one who originally nominated the article for deletion. I haven't followed developments, but I doubt NR has become notable in the meantime. In any case, I've retired after being topic banned on 9/11 articles, and I have a feeling that, given those libelous rumours, working on NR would violate at least the spirit of that ban, if not the letter.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Right, probabyeven they were not included. I'll take a look myself some time maybeDGG (talk) 14:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mailing-list query

Thanks for your response DGG, As you are probably aware I'm not from an academic background and find WP incredibly different from anything else on the web that I've dabbled with, although I'm learning by the minute. The list that I'm trying to promote Birding-Aus [5] is certainly frequented by academics although there is a lot of trivial stuff on it.The US list Birdchat is the grand-daddy [6] and EuroBirdnet [7] a close second, (there are also UK, SA, Fr and other alternatives) I don't know if this will help to 'certify' their 'notability' but I hope they could be looked at as a serious addition to WP's great info-source. Aviceda talk 09:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What you need, as mentioned there, is good independent published sources, print or online, that refer to the list. The best place is professional magazines. Another possibility is guides to birding. A backup is library websites or other good professional websites that suggest it, but it's better if they say something about it. I don;t know what may be there about it at the Cornell ornithology site, but that's always a good place to start for this subject. Start with whatever article you can find references on. Another possibility, that I'm not sure has been tried here, is a combination article on Birding e-mail lists. In any case, it would be prudent to write this on a subpage of your user space. I've set one up for you at User:Aviceda/BirdingLists. Let me know when you're ready for me to have a look at it. You should also ask for advice at the WP:WikiProject Birds--people there may know of references. DGG (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you fix

this please. I was trying to capitalize it, and whatever.......--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, I watch DGG's talk page and spotted the request. TravellingCari 03:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you, you stalker ;-). Woulda asked you if I thought you were online. You're usually snoring by now. No? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally, yes. TBC on your talk so as not to flood David. PS: Hi, David :) TravellingCari 04:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, and goodnight, though a little early for me. :) 04:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Simon LeVay

I think the cooling off worked, without me having to block anyone in fact. Are you aware if this is going to ArbCom? Bearian (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at this discussion

Would you please look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#John Edwards love child allegations. You're knowledgable about various deletion issues, and I think you could contribute a lot to that discussion. Noroton (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

done.DGG (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't disappoint! Noroton (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

John Hardy

Dear David,

You were good enough to comment on the question of whether the biography of John Hardy should reference a lawsuit involving not Hardy himself but the company he founded and later sold. Since then there has been no final decision and the original discussion has been archived. My follow up request on the BLP discussion board has also not attracted any attention. Could you please review and provide an authoritative decision? Many thanks. Steveb482 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

replied at BLP briefly,& in more detail at article talk page. I suggest dividing the article, the refs are good enough. 00:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Osteomyology

Dear David

In relation to the Osteomyology article that you commented on - I have written a new description and added it to the discussion page. Simon Troote is still being bias and I would appreciate your comments and suggestions, and of course, as long as he hangs this out, the attack stays for everyone to see (untrue)

Alan Clemens 86.145.183.50 (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Edwards allegations

Hi, David - I noticed you posted a thoughtful comment at WP:ANI about the above article. Is it all right if I quote you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations? Kelly ^hi! 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar - way overdue

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For helping diffuse testy controversies at WP:AN/I, Simon LeVay, WP:RFC, and many other places at Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Deutsch, Inc.

Hi! I saw the offer on your user page to send deleted text. Can you send me Deutsch Inc.? The person who deleted it has ignored my requests.

As far as User:ProudAGP, it is clear from the edits who ProudAGP is, and as such their edits fall under policies governing articles in which the person has a direct involvement. I am hoping this editor will do the right thing, since the right to edit anonymously does not supersede our code of conduct (see any number of controversial biographies I have edited, such as Paul Barresi, where involved parties editing anonymously have been revealed). This editor is a WP:SPA with a clear agenda in every edit made to date. I have no problem with a directly involved editor commenting or making agreed-upon changes to articles involving their area of knowledge. I don't have a problem with editors writing neutral articles about their areas of expertise. In this case, many of ProudAGP's edits will take on a different sense once that editor comes out. Jokestress (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very unhappy with how this Deutsch Inc. article was deleted out of process. Obviously, someone came in and added a lot of PROD, but it seems clear that there was an edit history that indicated this article was not always full of puffery. We don't delete articles on sight because of revisions that violate policy. Because the deletionist who removed it has also eradicated the edit history, there's no way to tell where the violative edits were introduced, or what the pre-violative article looked like. Can you reinstate the article with edit history? We can take it back to the pre-violative version. This kind of rash unilateral action is what drives good editors from the project. This is a notable agency, one of many I wrote up during a period where I was expanding Wikipedia coverage of advertising agencies in the US. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You can ask, but you cannot push. People may edit even the most controversial bio anonymously, and for some very good reasons people sometimes do--I'm sure you can think of why some articles could not be objective otherwise. If someone has COI, it will come out by making POV or spammy edits. If someone edits with a NPOV and inserts proper material, we do not reject them for COI. But you will notice that I too suggested that the editor identify, because normally for those articles we have been discussing true names have proved to greatly clarify the situation; for him, it may lend greater weight to the good edits,

As for Deutsch, in my opinion it's a salvageable article if sources were found and the tone revised. The easiest way to revise the tone would be to rewrite it from scratch, so its not an unreasonable G11. I've emailed it to you as wikitext DGG (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to start from my sourced version. Can you send that? Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

NOR question

DGG, I noticed that you frequently comment on questions in WP:NOR/N. Would you kindly take a look at the thread Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi, & offer your opinion? Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Exchange with User:Robertson-Glasgow

Would you mind reviewing an exhange that I've just had with User:Robertson-Glasgow? I started it off by politely asking him to source the significant contributions he has made to the article on African nationalism, but it has degenerated from there, and I'm not sure what the best course of action is. – SJL 18:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I gather it originated as the rough draft of an academic essay, & it would take rewriting as well as sourcing to make a good encyclopedia article out of it. It's clear think he wants to work on it further, and unless you do, the best thing is to list it at one of the WikiProjects groups for improvement (Africa?). Otherwise there's the question of whether it should be deleted, and that would depend somewhat on what other articles we have on he subject. If there's nothing much, I'd add a general reference or two, which should be easy enough, and hope someone eventually comes along. If there's something to merge, that's another solution. Lot's of people here start things they don't want to finish, and there's no way to get them to. DGG (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

the same is opposite

Thanks for your note. I was getting edit conflicts with the creator, so I backed off. I considered citing Britannica. Did not feel right. There are scads of sources. I'll check back and add the Brittanica cite if the creator is finished with it. (I hope the creator did not get scared off.) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sdhilio

Please check User:Sdhilio. He removed large parts in Russian Mafia without discussing this first on the talk page. Earlier, suspicion was raised the he might be the same as User:Mynameisstanley, see here. Mynameisstanley has stopped editing after a conlict. Sdhilio is now editing much the same pages as Mynameisstanley and behaves the same. Thank you. Mafia Expert (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I also alerted User talk:JzG. - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to keep you updated, and avoid unnecessary action, I filed a checkuser request here. - Mafia Expert (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

and I see he was demonstrated to be a sockpuppet. That article, by the way, needs extensive work. DGG (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

banning editors from both sides re Obama related pages

I support this proposal and would like my name added to WorkerBee74's for a possible topic ban that would also take out LotE (aka Lulu) and Scjessey. I have some 2000 career edits and have had enormous problems with those two on Obama related pages. The reason why "our" side is willing to be taken out is because we are confident that new editors or others coming in could not posssibly be worse. We can't edit those pages anyway along as those two are around to revert and revert and revert! If your advice would be to keep taking it to the Talk page, I'd suggest counting the number of words I've already contributed to Project Vote's Talk page, and note the number of unanswered arguments and observations, before concluding that that option has not already been quite thoroughly exhausted.Bdell555 (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have heard it suggested, and agree, that it is good for all subjects to not be the preserves of as small group of people permanently--quite regardless of controversy. Even if the editing is balanced, with two groups having attained an equilibrium, it is till better for new people to come in from time to time. And it is better for the editors themselves, even ones devoted to a subject, knowledgeable, and fair-minded, to have other interests here also. Change of perspective is usually for the good. What one learns in one field, one applies to another. This keeps stalemates from developing, and if you are in a stalemate, there really is no other practical option; it does not imply that anyone involved has been unreasonable in behavior or editing.. and DGG (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

advertisement issue on Masterpapers article

Hi, Although I have not been noticed regarding my article Masterpapers deletion status I saw it yesterday. I'm just wondering what else I should delete from the text in order to prove I'm not promoting this company! The article was shortened up to 5-6 sentences and I'm really lost with what else I should cut off. References? Please advise. Thanks 06 August, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterpapers (talk • contribs) 12:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the article, the problem is that the lack of references make it rather hard to defend. It is not a matter of cutting things out, but of finding some more. at this point almost anything would help, but it needs to be a substantial discussion, not a mere mention in a list. If the present article is deleted, I shall write an new one myself with different and I hope better content, but not until I accumulate enough references for it to stand. You can post them on my talk page if you like.

I have given a further argument at the Afd, but I am not sure it will be in time.

as for the block, I have given my opinion to the admin above that you're participating in writing a decent article about the company , not just spamming, and therefore you are not in violation of blocking policy. The other part is correct--you do need to pick another user name. DGG (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the spamusername block, but softblocked until the name can be changed. Good working with you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Input requested re Dicklyon/MarionTheLibrarian agreement

Hi, DGG. I appreciate that your role in our discussion was not in any official capacity, but I hope you might provide some input nonetheless. Despite his and my agreement (and that it had been working well until now), Dicklyon has resumed editing the disputed pages.[8][9] I have asked him on his talkpage to return to our agreement. He writes that BLP violations ought be an exception to our agreement, whereas I note that we did not include a BLP exception and that such exceptions would only lead to more warring, this time over what consitutes an exception. Please advise.
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 15:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dicklyon has falsely accused me of making BLP violations on Conway's page and on another, The Man Who Would Be Queen. The edit that I made on the Conway page (which will be restored shortly) is accurate and fair. Dicklyon clearly has the goal of keeping any mention of the Bailey controversy to a minimum. (Those familiar with the facts of that case will understand why Dicklyon, Conway's friend and unofficial Wikipedia editor, wish to keep it off.) Dicklyon and Marionthelibrarion never reached an agreement about the precise wording of an edit, and even if they had, it would not bind WP editors forever. (If I am wrong, please refer me to the WP rule that says otherwise.) The administrator who concluded that Conway is primarily known for her engineering contributions was mistaken, I think. Google Conway and her second hit is her transsexualism page. I think that a good analogy is the page of William Shockley. Much more distinguished scientifically than Conway (he did win a Nobel Prize), he still has a not-small section of his page devoted to his late life controversy, in his case speculating about race differences in intelligence. Conway has been accused of worse, in my opinion (e.g., making up false charges against another scientist in order to silence him). Note that my edits on Conway's page stop far short of taking a side on this issue.

And as for changing "Juanita's" identity from "person" to "prostitute," well she is a prostitute--let me know if you want more evidence; it's easily provided. (I suppose I could say "prostitute and person," but that seems unnecessary.) It is a highly relevant fact, regarding both her credibility (She sells her body for money, and Dreger suggests that she also sold her testimony for money.) and Bailey's alleged wrongdoing. (How bad would it be if he had sex with a prostitute he wrote about?) ProudAGP (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Without saying who is right, if either Dick or you edit the Conway page further at this time I shall block you to prevent further edit warring. DGG (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

but I will say now that the Shockley analogy does not hold--the arguments were not over misbehavior, but the validity of the entire field of research and became a question of national importance, very well known to the general public, and the subject of an immense field of subsequent literature. For J., I suggest the word "subject". But don't you make the edit. C's permanent importance in the world so far is as an engineer. Her current publicity is as an activist. Conceivably that will change, but we don't base importance on Google. DGG (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Like DGG, I also don't think the Shockley analogy is an apt comparison, for the reason stated by DGG and for one additional reason: Shockley is dead; Conway is alive. BLP obviously does not apply to the Shockley article, whereas it applies to the Conway article. Living persons can sue for libel; on the other hand, one cannot defame a dead man. BrownHornet21 (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Google hits, a Google search of "Lynn Conway" reveals: number 1, Conway's home page ("LynnConway.com Web. Lynn Conway. Computer Scientist,. Electrical Engineer,. Inventor. Research Manager,; Engineering Educator"), number 2 is what ProudAGP said, number 3 is her Wikipedia biography, number 4 is a computerworld.com article about how she and Carver Mead "opened up chip design field in new ways," number 5 is a link to Andrea James' site, number 6 is a hrc.org profile on Conway, ("Lynn Conway is a pioneering computer chip researcher and inventor who has been a leading expert in her field for more than 40 years"), and number 7 is a youtube clip of Loretta Lynn and Conway Twitty singing "easy loveing" [sic]. What exactly does all this prove? Google hits are not necessarily an accurate measure of one's primary notability, and even if they were, the current results seem to indicate that Conway is first and foremost known for her contributions to computer science.BrownHornet21 (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit the Conway further? I have not edited the Conway page at all. I chose to contact you and BrownHornet21 exactly to avoid another edit war. If there are other ways to prevent escalation, I would certainly be open to hearing them. (Are you perhaps confusing me with ProudAGP, Dicklyon's newest choice for a nemesis?)

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 21:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The message immediately above my reply was from AGP, and my warnng was directed at him. JC, I know you haven't been editing it. DGG (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 23:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG, you seem like a well-intentioned person, so it is with respect that I suggest that your position, above, is incorrect. I think you give Shockley too much credit and Conway too little. Shockley was not an influential psychologist. The attention given to his views on race was due to his being a Nobel Prize winner, and it was mostly in the media. Conway's attack on Bailey was surely due to the defense of an idea, and her defense has been very successful. It is very hard for anyone to be publicly a proud autogynephile, due to her attacks on the concept, and on Bailey. Transsexualism and gender identity are very controversial and hot topics, and Conway has at least tried to be influential in the way they are thought about. And does it not strike you as unfair that Bailey's page has a large section regarding various accusations that Conway and friends leveled against him (and that Alice Dreger's peer reviewed article featured in the New York Times concluded were baseless and motivated by scientific censorship), but that Conway can have no more than a couple of vague sentences in her biography? Surely Bailey has been a much more visible scientist than Conway to the public during the past decade. (A "60 Minutes" episode that largely featured work out of his laboratory, several New York Times articles besides the one on the controversy, a Boston Globe magazine cover story that mentions him quite a lot.) It seems to me that the solution to prevent what I have added to her biography from having undue weight is for Dicklyon to expand the scientific part of her biography. If she's such an important engineer, shouldn't he be able to write lots about why? Otherwise it seems the case (and I believe it is obvious that it is the case) that Dicklyon wants to prevent the inclusion of legitimate negative information there. And Conway was prominently mentioned in the New York Times article about the Bailey/Conway/Dreger controversy.ProudAGP (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is being fought a too many places already, so I'll just comment briefly that I tend to regard statements like "Conway has at least tried to be influential in ..." is parallel to "this band is at least trying to become famous..." Fortunately, her actual notability in the world depends neither on your arguments or mine. The main article on the controversy is Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy. that's where to put the details. The others should refer to it, instead of repeating it. I continue to think that you are advocating putting negative information in as many articles as possible. I have no desire to enter into either the controversy on transexuality or on Conway. I'm just trying to keep a stable compromise. DGG (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG, I initially read your response (and still do to some extent) as missing the central point that it is unfair to have extensive negative information on Bailey's page but hardly any mention of relevant negative information on Conway's. But your response also triggered in me the idea that one approach to this big problem is to reduce the amount of negative informoation about all parties on WP. (The amount of space devoted to this controversy is way out of line; after all it was not the Battle of the Bulge.) So I will be proposing several large changes with the goal of having relevant pages being less venemous and more stable. I hope you will support me in those efforts.ProudAGP (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

DGG: Dicklyon is apparently testing your limits by seeing if he can get away with minor edits in the section he agreed not to edit at all.[10] I was perhaps naive to believe that Dicklyon would stick to his word. If you too support some interpretation of his and my agreement that includes exceptions, please let me know what those exceptions are?
— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is actually the interesting general question of whether enforcement should have a zero % tolerance, the difference between substantial equity and strict procedure. On the one hand, you are technically correct, but on the other it's a totally uncontroversial and helpful edit My opinion, after think about it several times, is that I would advise Dicklyon not to do so, to avoid temptation. DGG (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Masterpapers

It's the first time I have problems with my account, so I didn;t know how to change my username and created a new one which is 'vick1976' How should I proceed to unblock this old one? When I created my first account the article about Masterpapers was my first idea to publish, therefore I chose this username: the article about this company was my step to the published world. it's not the problem at all to change the username as this article brought me much more problems rather than considerable contribution in the published world :). So how can I use my new account name 'vick1976' instead of this old one? As for more resources: I understand that the topic is worth to discuss and you want me to update the article with some more resources which reflect the continuous attempts to resolve plagiarism problem in academic world and fight such 'student help' companies. Am I right? Thanks for all your advice in advance. Vick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vick1976 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

the old one will not be unblocked, since it is not permitted to create such a name. Just edit properly under the new one. I am not sure the article will be there long enough to update, and what you will need to do is to write a new one on your user space. I will copy the existing article there is it gets deleted, as it probably will. You will then need to go to WP:Deletion Review, and ask to have the new article you have been writing reinstated. There will be no point in doing so until you have much better references for notability. I consider the existing one enough, but it is beginning to look like the consensus does not agree with me, and that';s the way it's decided here. DGG (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is the new article to be asked to reinstate? I do not quite understand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterpapers (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

to restore an article after it has been deleted at afd one must write a new article that answers all the objections made against the old one. Then one can boldly reinsert it, but it is nonetheless likely to be speedy deleted as a essentially similar recreation of a deleted article. If so,one goes to WP:Deletion Review to get a judgment that the article is sufficiently different to be worth standing & being discussed at a second AfD. DGG (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Media franchises

Dear DGG...If you are still interested in participating in WikiProject Media franchises, please remove your name from the inactive participants list and add it to the active participants list. If you don't have time, but would still like to show some support, you can always add yourself to the sympathizers list. It would be wonderful to see you in the project. Have a nice day! - LA (T) 19:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Competition law

I am trying to head off an edit war at Competition law (see the nasty edit summaries at the article's history). If it gets really bad, I may have to go to WP:AN/I. However, for now, I think it will be O.K. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC). Yes, everyone seems calm now, once you stepped in. :) DGG (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion of the recently closed WP:ANI discussion of User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters at User talk:HandThatFeeds. I have prepared evidence against LotLE and have almost finished an evidence presentation against Scjessey. The evidence of their disruptive, tendentious editing at Barack Obama and elsewhere is beyond overwhelming. They have endeavored to stay a few millimeters under the radar, and so have avoided any admin attention for the most part. Also, their friend Wikidemo has been most diligent in selectively reporting the excesses of such editors as WorkerBee74 and Kossack4Truth, but gives LotLE and Scjessey a pass for their own misconduct. And WB74 and K4T, for their part, have been less than diligent about reporting it. So the community gets the impression that WB74 and K4T are the only troublemakers on the article. I would appreciate it if you would present this evidence to the community. No one will listen to me, since I'm a newbie and they are experienced editors. You could present it as a neutral party, seeking only what's in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. Curious bystander (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

what do you think will happen if it escalates? that only those on one side will be blamed? The easiest way of ending complicated Wikipedia disputes is the "off with everybody's head" technique. DGG (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Trevor Enders

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at ESanchez013's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

just for the record, ES put a speedy tag on an article of a major league baseball player, and I have reminded him that doing this is likely to be considered disruptive. DGG (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Navigation keys

As a side note, the CSD was there first and is referring to this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WASD keys (2nd nomination). It was a direct copy of WASD keys when I tagged it for speedy. The AfD on Navigation keys was added by another editor after the CSD tagging and User:Haikupoet continued merging in the articles from the WASD Keys AfD without waiting for that AfD to finish. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

yes, but now that there's a community discussion, it seems simplest to continue it, reach a conclusion, and finish with the issue. It sounds like several people working at cross purposes. Why did you tag it for speedy by the way--the policy for copies is to make them a redirect? And why did you tag for speedy when someone was obviously in the middle of working on the article? Impatience seems to have caused the confusion. DGG (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy because it looked like a copy to avoid deletion, not because it was being merged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

personally, i do not see the point in unravelling the motives at every step of this confusion. Let's just clean up the article(s). DGG (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

article deletion

I saw my article about Masterpapers company has been deleted due to its 'blatant advertisement' of the company's services. You saw my article and I'm quite sure you didn't find any advertisement. I'm not so confident in such questions, but if Lucinor has ever had some experience with this company how could her/his opinion be neutral one? Regarding notability: he/she knows well (if he/she has had experience as she/he mentioned) that essay selling industry is really notable to write about because there are 'papers mills' as she/he said and they produce THOUSANDS of essays for students. This industry estimates millions of dollars and it IS NOTABLE TO TALK ABOUT! It's become the global-scale problem of fraud and such reports as Times etc. are really important to say about. Among such 'paper mills' masterpapers is a giant, thus I chose this company to write about: it's like McDonald's products among fast food. Essay selling DOES EXIST and it's worth saying due to its huge volumes of profits and services provided. Hope you'll change your mind soon Masterpapers (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

as i told you, the way to get the article kept is to find 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases) besides the NYT article -- which was obviously not considered sufficient by the consensus of opinion--that also talk about it. Something in the educational journals or trade papers perhaps . (college student papers are not considered totally reliable here). If it is by far the leading company, this should be possible. The fact that you chose a name identical to the company has not unreasonably caused people to wonder about COI for you as well, and I would in fact be more willing to help if you made a clear declaration about what your connection is. I am not happy with the editing history of the article. But all I can do to help is give advice: I do not decide on the deletion of articles, and cannot overturn the result of an afd. Deletion review can, but they are extremely unlikely to do so without added material. Use a neutral name, write an article in your Sandbox in user space, and ask people to look at it. The various people at AfD were pretty clear that the notability of the industry does not necessarily carry over to the company. DGG (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pointe aux Barques Lighthouse

How do we get this article deleted? From the talk page "I can't see any info that needs merging. The Pointe aux Barques Light article already appears to contain all the information in this article. I put a deletion tag on this article. Once this article is gone, we can take up the naming issue at the other. Asher196 (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)" Asher196 (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you are confused, there are two articles on this lighthouse, Pointe aux Barques Lighthouse and Pointe aux Barques Light. The "Light" article is more detailed and contains all the information presented in the "lighthouse" article. Asher196 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and did a little moving. You may want to move it to a different title though. spryde | talk 00:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympics opening ceremony

I hope for the sake of his blood pressure GPM was not watching this, which as interpreted by the BBC, contained a claim that the Chinese invented movable type and the printing press, acted out by 400-odd dancers! Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

if so, they got it half right. DGG (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Scotland copyvio

It's not factual reporting. This page indicates that only one list existed online, and that page was the same (and only) source given on the WP page. Not only that, the list here is a year out of date, and stops presumably where the other list stopped. Thus, it's likely a c/p copyvio. MSJapan (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

if it is out of date, why not update it & improve it enough to remove any cpyvio. I decline to delete as undoubted an asserted copyvio for which I do not see the source. The critrion for speedy is "undoubted" not "likely" The thing to do with "likely" is to put on a copypaste tag and discuss them. DGG (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Avineshjose

hi mate it seems you have dealt with this person in the past.. outa the blue I've gotten an email from them that at first glance looked like spam. Far as you know are they upfront or what?

Cheers Garrie 02:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I need a little more context on this. Feel free to email. DGG (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

please help

my page Jon Ratliff is being proposed for deletion. and i noticed you helped my friend LPcatcher20 when one of his pages was nominated. so im not sure why it should be deleted. Ratliff played for the Oakland Athletics of Major League Baseball. thank you --Adam Penale (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind sorry --Adam Penale (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

American Brain Cancer Foundation

Exactly the same article has been speedied twice before.... – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

my view is different--suggestion though, you might check for copyvio. If so, that will get rid of it, if not, your recourse is AfD, where I might even !vote for deletion but I think it passes speedy. DGG (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)== NLP AfD ==

CSD

Re: David Berkoff Fair enough. Samer (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

All happy now

See? 'nuff said :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

SESAMO (Sexrelational Test)

Hi DGG, first of all thanks for your positive evaluation on the voice (headword) in matter. I kindly wanted to ask you, before making errors (or to receive reproaches), if I can widen the explanation of the term / headword "SESAMO (Sexrelational Test)"

Thanks for the helps (I apologize for my poor/limited english, I live in Italy)

Vincent Trevisan aka Trevinci (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is simple: you need to have references that the test is widely accepted by others, as shown by 3rd party independent reliable published sources. All the sources in the article at present appear to be from proponents of the text. If there is a discussion of it in an Italian printed textbook, this is fine, but you';ll need to give at least a quote and translation of a key passage showing it's important. What would help even more is references to it in the professional peer-reviewed literature. Otherwise the article will inevitably be deleted, as it looks as if it is promotional for the test. Please see our Business FAQ for advice in this and related situations. DGG (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will follow your suggestions. Thanks. Trevinci (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Laffillé deleted speedily

as there is an article on the French Wikipedia. Also, the French article has a tag that I think (I flunked French.) says the notability is in doubt. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I havent the time to work on it, so I will have to let it pass for the time being. DGG (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Media franchises unofficial coordinator

Dear DGG...I am so happy that you are part of WikiProject Media franchises. I am still reaching out to other WikiProjects to see if we can get some more interest, so I would like to depend on you and the others to do things like get articles assessed and find other articles which might need our attention by placing {{WikiProject Media franchises}} on their talk pages. Another thing is to start using {{Infobox Media franchises}} on franchise articles. I trust you to use your best judgment, and if you haven't already done so, you can add {{User WikiProject Media franchises}} to your user page or dedicated user box page. When enough people have that, or WikiProject Media franchises participants on the user pages, I will start that category.

I may not be the best coordinator around, but I am doing my best. I hope that you approve. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeffries

I couldn't find out much about it to be honest, so feel free to change etc. and sorry if I got a bit wrong, I wasn't even sure a case had really been filed until I found that source saying it had come to nothing. I did feel a bit cruel for appearing to 'target' him, but it was just the first one I happened to land on. I decided that if the 'seduction community' insist on having numerous articles, the encyclopedia deserves to have NPOV articles about the 'seduction community' rather than deleting them. And there is plenty of criticism in WP:RS.:) for these subjects. However I was put off these articles a bit by one young boy who's into it calling me a "sticky h*bag' amongst other things lol.:) Sticky Parkin 12:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

as for your general approach to these articles, I share your annoyance and agree with what you were doing. I'll make the adjustment. DGG (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironbridge Consulting

You marked this page for deletion, the information contained on that page contained no judgements with regard to the company it merely stated some basic facts. I had hoped to complete editing on the page today, because I think it is important now especially given that the company's software and services are used by the USDA, USFS, AMS, ARS, CREES, APHIS, CNPP, FSA, FSIS, and every other agency under the USDA. The software is used to help executives understand the entire breadth of the enterprise. I felt that given the size and numbers involved in these agencies and department that employees and management should be able to go to the web and get at least a basic understanding of the company. I did not make any judgements about the quality or capabilities of the software, I simply stuck to the facts. At no point did I mention the 18 million in R&D that has gone into creating this cutting edge toolset, nor did I talk about the scope of its deployment because I thought those things might qualify as promotional. I simply stuck to the facts. The company has been proposed as an addition to the "FAST 50" the 50 fastest growing privately held companies in the US and has been proposed for a significant award based on it's achievements in its field. I would appreciate it if you would allow repost this article based on these facts or send me the text of the article so that I can propose it again once the company meets your criteria. Jmillsapps (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it so you can make the additions--and the improvements that will be necessary. I've put on a "prod" tag for deletion in 5 days if not improved. For a guide to doing this right, see our Business FAQ. Information about size and market share is relevant, as is awards, though if they are merely proposed thy may not help all that much. What you really need is 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases), from newspapers or the trade press, that talk about the company in a substantial way to show its importance. A review of the software is ideal. A list of the 2 or 3 most important adopters or projects used is also helpful. If you can do this, the article will probably be kept--remove the tag, but be prepared for someone to send it for a regular deletion discussion at WP:AFD. Some of the material in the article did seem purely promotional, and I started improvements off by removing a paragraph of what we consider as advertising. As for style, in the rewritten article use the full name of the company as little as possible,and omit all general adjectives indicating merits. The bulleted points are over general, and will be seen as promotional also. We don't use trademark or copyright symbols. Terms in the article that have Wikipedia articles should be linked. It must sound like an encyclopedia article: dull and descriptive, not like a press release And do not copy anything from the company website. : But the main thing is sources--you have to give evidence for the notability. Good luck with it. DGG (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

regrets

I much regret that I will miss the next NYC meetup / picnic. All is quiet on the Western front, that is to say, the ballet world as reflected on Wikipedia. Apparently I've had the good fortune to have encountered most — if not all — of the Wiki. balletophobes and have — for the most part — persuaded them of ballet's merits. For which reason I've left you in peace; thank you for having resolved those issues which could not be resolved amicably. — Robert Greer 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There will be a real meeting in late September or early October. Stay vigilent -- dealing with deletionists in a subject area is a continuing battle. It takes just one person who doesn't understand to accidentally see an article and .... DGG (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Your patience and diligence will be rewarded in the afterlife, assuming there is one. — Robert Greer (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I noticed that you voted in the nomination for deletion of the article Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. As I don't know you or your motives for voting as you did, and not to insult you or your intelligence, I felt that a misunderstanding occurred during the vote, causing many editors to vote for deletion based on the merits of a strawman argument. Please revisit the AfD (at the embedded link above) to gain a clearer understanding of my issue with this vote and either uphold or revise your vote -- I am not writing to you to demand that you retract -- rather, I feel that some votes may have been swayed by what may no longer apply to the article, and because most of those who voted merely reiterated the nominator's premise, perhaps a review will produce a fairer outcome. Thank you. (and archiving in smaller chunks might improve navigation of your talk page for visitors :)) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to change my comments there. DGG (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Skoojal#Can.27t_help.2C_sorry

I can't help this editor, can you? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried before,and I will try again. have a good vacation DGG (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the request you made, I posted on the Simon LeVay talk page:

":I'll do this to the best of my abilities once I have the time and proper motivation. However, I do not own the books LeVay has written, I suppose I could check my local libraries. What Skoojal labeled a 'personal attack' on him was my attempt to show that in general he is using quotes that make it seem as if the researchers do not think their results have any clear conclusion to be drawn from them when in fact they are being good scientists and admitting some ambiguity and then going on to argue why their results still strongly suggest x or y, which he leaves out. Notice that the entire "Books" section consists of quoting LeVay admitting the existence of such ambiguity. The same type of slant appears in the INAH 3 section, as well."

I'd be interested to know if you agree with my assessment of the current situation of the article or not. Thanks. C0h3n (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You will need to find someone saying this--attempting do do so on your own by arranging materal to prove a point amounts to OR. DGG (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Academic/Citation help needed: Harold Y. McSween

Hi David, hope you're staying dry with this crazy weather! Quick question when you have a moment. Harold Y. McSween. Sounds impressive and likely should be notable but Scholar isn't helping much, with or without the middle initial. If you have a moment, can you let me know whther or not his work is cited. I want to try and clean-up the article but haven't found too much to work with. Thanks! TravellingCari 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC) I put in a few key sentences, and I am quite sure it will pass AfD. Another case of someone's main notability being pre-internet. DGG (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I have no intention of taking it to AfD, was just trying to find something to add to keep others who patrol the backlog from doing so. TravellingCari 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikifying books

DGG, I find the comment about this that you recently left on my talk page to be extremely confusing and frankly unhelpful. I'd appreciate some more clarification. Skoojal (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You were placing links around all the books in the articles on such people as [ Joseph Nicolosi and Jeffrey Satinover‎, making red links of them, with the edit comment: "(wikify, since these books are probably all notable enough to deserve articles in their own right)" . I think that is an attempt to give undue and inappropriate emphasis to material . There are very few authors indeed all of whose works are notable. Write the article first, and if it is accepted, then the link would stand. But to put them in first is inappropriate. I think you;d have some difficulty showing that for any of the books, and certainly not for all. If you want to try, pick the most important --but my guess is hat you;'ll find consensus will be to merge with the article on the author. DGG (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi DGG. Thanks very much for commenting at my recent RfA. I thought it was somewhat funny that Tan asked the question to think of myself in comparison to you, considering there was that time not too long ago when you said "delete" and I said "keep". :) Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC

About Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions. Long. Not urgent, but important.

This is long, DGG, because the issues, it seems to me, are complex and, as well, important. I mention current events, including my block and so forth, as examples fresh in my memory. I'm not asking for, nor do I expect, your intervention in those matters. The goal here is a good result in the suggested clarifications from Carcharoth at the subject talk page. Further, because of my voluntary restrictions -- this is covered as an exception, but just so it's clear -- if there is anything wrong with my posting this here, please let me know. It could be deleted without reading, etc., and deletion would be, if not explained, a quick sign that it was improper.

This is related to the flap that got me blocked. There were two aspects to that flap, and the first was about my efforts to reverse a topic ban, and that brings me here today. There was a community discussion re a proposed topic ban for an editor, WW. (I'm not giving full user names here because it's actually irrelevant, though you could find them easily on my talk or I'd supply them.) This discussion showed a strong majority -- not unanimity, with some experienced editors disagreeing, as I recall -- for a topic ban. But the discussion petered out, no admin closed it, and it was archived by the bot. Then the supposedly banned editor made an edit in violation of it. The original complainant went to an administrator who had previously been involved in the issue. I don't recall if that admin had voted in the process, but the admin would have been considered involved. (Later, mentioned this, once, and then dropped this as a line of approach, because there was a clear consensus anyway, and quite possibly another admin would have closed the same way. I was interested in resolution, not in fighting over propriety.) The admin, FP, faced with the complaint, noticed that nobody had notifed WW of the ban. So he did so, on her Talk, and when she objected, "I don't see why...." he wrote something like "It wasn't my decision, it was a community decision, I'm just the messenger, don't blame me."

When I became, a few days later, aware of this situation (another editor had been blocked as a result of his attempt to intervene before), and when I investigated what was underneath, I saw what was, based on all the evidence I saw, a very poor decision. WW is an editor well above average. Her articles sometimes contain errors, but they are fixable, and I've never seen an article that was so bad that Wikipedia would have been better off without it. And her contributions have been voluminous, and she has 30 successful DYK nominations, so far. So I began to work to reverse the ban. Where would I start? What is the least disruptive way to deal with this? I already trust AN and AN/I about as far as I can throw them, and they aren't part of dispute resolution, they are massively being abused, and this original report, the one that decided on the ban, really didn't belong there in the first place. There was no incident of the editor ignoring a warning, standard process was working. I'm sure that, had it come to that, a user RfC wouldn't have decided on a ban, because that is a slower, more deliberative environment, and I'm also sure that if she were to appeal this ban to ArbComm, it would not be supported. Quite simply, there was no basis except some rather outrageous accusations by an editor who stated that her contributions were "crap," later amended to "vandalism." And nobody accused him of personal attack or harassment, even though he hauled her before AN/I, or attempted to, I think it was three times or more. She didn't go, she didn't, apparently, even look at AN/I.

So, following WP:DR, I'd go to the one who made the decision to ban. But there wasn't a closing admin. Nobody had made the decision. At this point, I could have simply said, there is no ban. However, there was an admin who had said there was. Perhaps he was the closing admin. He just hadn't made the edit to close. So I went to him and laid out this point, and mentioned three options: He could repeat what he'd said to the user, "It wasn't my decision," he could review the evidence and whatever new aspects I was stating to him, and decide to close with "no ban," or possibly some other action, or he could affirm the ban, as the closing admin. In the first two cases, presumably, no ban. Or maybe a ban for a specified term or with some restrictions or conditions. And in the last case, then I could take the next step. He chose the latter option, which surprised me a bit, since he had been presenting himself to WW as a friendly admin who was trying to help her. Maybe, and probably that's how he thought of it, but I no longer wondered why she wasn't responsive to him. She couldn't trust him. Now that he had decided, which I considered a positive result, I then argued for a lifting of the ban, on a number of grounds. He declined, giving as his reason that he could not reverse a community decision without going back to the community. I then argued with this, since I considered it a defective understanding of how we make decisions. Had he said, "I've looked at the evidence and considered your evidence and arguments, and I still affirm the ban," again, I'd have been done with him, my next step would have been to involve a neutral administrator. Not AN/I, not then, and probably not ever.

However, without my asking and without my knowledge, even, at first, FP took the matter to AN, because, as I recall, he'd never done a ban discussion closure before and wasn't sure he'd done it right. Understandable, but ... wrong environment, because what he got was pretty much what I'd expect: "Yes, there was a consensus there, good job, you were right." Nobody said, "Wait a minute! There was no evidence presented that showed blockworthy behavior, there were only charges by the complainant, with editors, some of them, saying something like "If what B has written is true, and I see no reason why he'd lie ...." (He had not exactly lied, he'd merely exaggerated, i.e., a single incident was described using plural, as if "she attacked another editor" became "she attacks other editors," and this was true, apparently, for every charge. That she had stopped the behavior after warning wasn't mentioned.) So, when I returned, I was more or less forced to go to AN and comment. At this point I was warned that I was harassing FP, though I found that preposterous. And then Fredrick day dropped his little stinkbomb, I reacted to it as he could have predicted and probably did, and the community then reacted as also could have been predicted, and I was blocked.

The issue that brings me here is this question of closure. I am arguing that the community never makes any decisions at all, only individual editors and administrators actually make decisions, or sometimes the Foundation. We set up community process so that editors, administrators, and the Foundation are advised by the community, but the ultimate decision is in the hands of the person or body or officer that makes it, and that person or body or officer is responsible for it. ("Body," here, refers only to ArbComm and the Foundation board). Rough consensus establishes that the decision is reasonable, however, we expect closing admins to confirm that any evidence and arguments have been properly considered. If an admin closes an AfD, for example, merely on the basis of the !vote count, it's a procedural error. An admin should never close with a decision that the administrator disagrees with, with the admin merely being a rubber stamp for what appears to be a community decision. If the admin considers himself or herself sufficiently well-informed, and as understanding the situation sufficiently well to overrule, in a close, even a unanimous !vote, I'd say that the admin is obligated to do it, as long as the admin is neutral. We do not decide by !vote. We decide by cogency of argument and examination of evidence, by the closing admin.

And, then, this admin becomes the community's representative in administering the decision. In implementing it, first, and then being available for easy appeal, as the first step. If an editor can convince the closing admin that the decision was not the best one, then we are done, and often this is very simple and easy, I've done it with AfDs and with blocks. So why not with bans?

But if a closing admin can, as Carcharoth put it, as I recall, "hide behind the community," then the ban is not reversible without further complex and possibly disruptive process. The admin avoids all responsibility for it. "It wasn't my decision, it was the community's decision." And what this, then, allows, is a close that is not based on examination of evidence and arguments, but on something else. The most obvious something else is vote count. But there is another possibility, which would be either bias or, as does apparently apply here, prior opinion based on impressions from elsewhere, not shown in the evidence, and so not a basis for the votes, being merely the admin's prior impression and memory. A word for this would be prejudice. Now, I do not for a moment think that FP realized this, I have no complaint about him. He acted as he believed proper. But my conclusion is that it wasn't proper. And we can clear this up, as it applies to community bans, by making the matter clear. Carcharoth has approached one aspect of this, but he implied that a decision supposedly made by a community consensus should not be reversed by a closing admin, which, I think, perpetuates the core misunderstanding, and sets up more fuss. If the closing admin agrees that a decision he or she previously made was improper, it's very simple: they reverse it, or permit another to, thus fixing what may have been their own error, even if that error were shared by every member of the community !voting. If the admin considers that the community would reject this change, then the admin may take the matter to an appropriate place, but that is discretionary, because anyone can do this. Where there is no emergency, this would almost never be AN/I, and even AN is probably not a good place. Too many comments from people who make decisions and judgments without having the evidence in front of them. Beyond FP, with him firm in his opinion, I'd have involved another admin for discussion. If I couldn't find an admin to agree that there was a problem, well, again, very efficient. I'd be done. FP and I would have come to this stage, of bringing in aother admin, quickly, if not for the AN report, which simply inflamed the whole thing. He apparently proposed this fairly early on, and I overlooked it, but I'd have been there within a day anyway. So he, after I was blocked, did it on his own, he brought in Carcharoth, an excellent choice.

But the process question still remains. Can administrator who closes a ban discussion, then set terms for the ban, whether they were specified originally or not? To change terms, is it necessary to go back to, in this case, the place where the decision was made (which was AN/I, not AN)? (Wikipedia talk:Did you know would be better, in my opinion, with possibly an RfC there, should discussion between two or three not resolve the matter.) Or can the often much simpler process of two editors, discussing it, without a lot of noise, cover and accomplish this? The original ban had no term. It was also very unclear in its object. Is the goal to prevent bad articles? Or the nomination of bad articles at DYK? Bad articles nominated for DYK often get fixed very quickly, so if there was a problem with WW creating bad articles in order to get DYK nominations that are successful, it would be a problem that would fix itself, by calling the attention of many knowledgeable editors to the article, quickly. As a result of this incident, I came to the conclusion that DYK is one of the best tools we have for improving the project quickly, and WW's alleged "selfish" motivation to get DYKs was actually a good thing, to be encouraged, and that seems to be the community consensus at DYK. Not among editors who haven't ever thought about it!

If WW had actually been guilty of what she was charged with, the solution would not have been a topic ban for DYK. It would have been warning and block. The DYK ban was apparently intended to strike at her allegedly bad motive to get DYK nominations. I circumvented that by reviewing an article of hers, as did another editor, and nominating myself, so, though it was more work than I anticipated, I now have nominated a successful DYK, and there is another from the other editor, and, it appears, our doing this may have encouraged her to return to her voluminous creation of decent articles. She can still get DYKs. But I see no reason why she should not be able to nominate them herself, and she is much better at cleaning up articles than I am. She could have done what I did in half the time, I'm sure.

She did not defend herself at AN/I, in spite of efforts by FP to get her to respond there. I do not blame her. This is a 16-year old girl, not a grizzled veteran of twenty years of on-line debate like myself, nor a young man like many of our admins, accustomed or inured to incivility and personal attack, nor a woman like Durova or Elonka or Iridescent who have become the same. Dropping into the AN/I environment could make her physically ill. She had no obligation to respond there, and if the community had observed its collective obligation to vote based on evidence and consideration of arguments, she'd have had no need to respond. This is why we have an individual make a decision, expecting that individual to use prudence. We prefer admins for closings because they can enforce them, and we can specially hold them responsible. We cannot hold those who vote in a process responsible. We could easily have lost WW over this, she went away for a week, which may or may not have been related. It wouldn't have been surprising. How would you feel if someone on AN/I called your year of hard work, all of it, "crap" and "vandalism," and the community simply ignored that and focused on your own very small and not-repeated mistakes, instead? Rereading this, as I have several times, it makes me angry, I get a visceral reaction, how badly we treated her, and this isn't uncommon. It's much worse than anything that has happened to me, here. I'm angry, not at the person who insulted her, but at the community for allowing this to happen, and tolerating it. And I understand how the community could do this. "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." It's the structure, the process, it's a set-up for this. Hence my focus on process, it's actually crucial.

Should closing admins following a limited and rushed community discussion, such as takes place at AN/I, have the right and responsibility to reverse those decisions after close, based on their own reconsideration, without going back to recreate a new discussion? (Which could still be done by anyone.) I'd say that we already have an answer with blocks and XfDs, and it is yes, clearly so. The matter is, probably simply because it has never been specifically considered, unclear with bans (which includes, perhaps, full community bans, i.e., confirmed blocks). Assuming that the decision was the community's decision, and therefore it should be referred back to the original "decider," is a fundamentally flawed approach, for there is no going back to the same "community." Ever. Unless we individually asked every !voter. No, the decision was that of the closer, not the community as such, and that person then can reverse it. Simple. Clear. Practical. And the same as we do elsewhere. If I want to challenge an AfD, the first step is not DRV, which is a form of going back to the community. It's approaching the closing admin, because this will avoid much disruption and waste of time, if we can agree, and it works, for me, about as often as not, saving much otherwise wasted editor time to get, quite likely, the same result (if the closing admin changes his or her mind based on new evidence or argument, the community is quite likely to agree. When I've seen such reversals actually go back, they have always been confirmed. The closing admin normally represents the community, as a well-informed member if they've done the work involved in a proper close.

Since FP wouldn't agree to change his decision (after I finally nudged him into actually making it himself), the next step wasn't another community process, involving many editors writing many comments, perhaps, plus gunking up the already overburdened noticeboards, but to try to involve one more admin. DGG, this is how delegable proxy would make decisions. The Wikipedia model is already very close. The only difference is that with DP, if it were in place and being used, one would know exactly who would be a good choice for that next step, from two people (decider and me, if I'm one making a different suggestion), to three, thus keeping involvement in discussion to the minimum necessary to find consensus. (That next step might possibly involve another editor. I.e., my proxy and the proxy of the closing admin. It would depend on whether or not I could approach the closing admin's proxy directly or not. The actual next discussion would probably be between two editors in either case.) But, of course, that's a discussion for the future. For now, we have this question at Editing restrictions. --Abd (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

the closure for a complete ban is that no admin out of all the 1200_ active ones is wiling to unblock. The way to close a topic ban has not yet been decided. We haven't done many of these, and figuring it out is a gap in our procedures. I would not draw over-general conclusions from that. DGG (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

disruptive afd AfD nomination

someone of your experience should know that a/ambassadors of major countries to the UN are notable b/that we do not delete for unreferenced and c/that making afd nomination without checking the most obvious sources is not productive. The combination of these three in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinichi Kitaoka is in my opinion disruptive. as an admin, you have the repsonsiblity to follow policies in an exemplary manner. DGG (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree with A or B. There are ~200 UN members, most/all of which have had multiple UN ambassadors/representatives. I don't think they are inherently notable, and if this were accepted, it's a short step to suggesting that anyone who has ever been an ambassador is notable. If all of those 200 countries have diplomatic relations with each other, that's already 19,900 current ambassadors, to say nothing of the many thousands more historic holders of the posts.

In light of the sources and references which people have brought up in Japanese, which is a language I cannot speak or read, I have withdrawn the nomination, but since there are other delete opinions, a speedy keep is not an option.

To my knowledge I have not failed to follow any policy in this nomination. As two other users agreed with me that the article should be deleted, my nomination was clearly not disruptive or as clear-cut as you may think it to be.

I ask you not to be so belligerent in your posts here and to AFDs and DRVs where we disagree. I respect your opinion on these matters, even when I don't share it, and I request that you equally respect mine. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have said "careless" rather than disruptive, and I shouldnt have implied you're violating policies, just not showing the good judgment an admin would be expected to show/ Incidentally, many of the added refs were in English, not Japanese. And, although 200*199=39,800, many of the smaller countries combine posts,so I suspect he true number is about 10,000 at a time. But we could go back in history and deal with 5 or 10 times that number, if w had people to write even the stub articles, and I hope that we will. DGG (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

)

Academic bios

Here are two academic bios that you might want to take a gander at:

• Alvin E. Roth is a game theorist and economist. I started the page when I noticed that some links to the name in references led to a contract bridge player, Alvin Roth.

• Richard A. Houghten is a biologist. I rescued the page from deletion--it was basically a copy/paste of his CV (See original text on the talk page) with no formatting or anything.

Both I fear have become more about the accomplishments than the men. I intend to improve Al roth and take it to GAN in September but I don't have the technical knowledge to improve Richard Houghten considerably. Thanks for any help you can offer. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, nevermind. I misread what the tag said. I am not sure the tag is right, but I don't care if it's there. Sorry about that.ProudAGP (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I added some citation data for both. The most important additional material for Roth would be the reviews of his books, which you can probably get in Google Scholar--or at least for some of them. There is probably some personal data hidden away in the references. Some people disclose a good deal on the university home pages and publication blurbs, others choose not to. It's not of any importance in the notability of an academic, for the notability depends on his academic work. People do like to read about the personal aspects for human interest though, so it's normal to add a sentence about early schooling at the start and one about his family at the end, To the extent that the person is actually really famous, the information, especially about his early life, becomes of greater interest, as people reasonably try to account to the devlelopment of his genius. But the actually important part is the acdemic career. DGG (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about "closure" of a community ban.

DGG wrote:the closure for a complete ban is that no admin out of all the 1200_ active ones is wiling to unblock. The way to close a topic ban has not yet been decided. We haven't done many of these, and figuring it out is a gap in our procedures. I would not draw over-general conclusions from that. DGG (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't drawn conclusions from the gap, at all, I'm trying to fill it. That lack of willingness isn't exactly a closure, it's a condition, an absence of any decision. It exists, in fact, for any blocked user until the user is unblocked. I haven't followed many community ban discussions at all, and I think, most "bans" are very informally decided, i.e., the community simply starts talking aobut an indef blocked user as banned after the question of unblocking has come up and has been rejected, i.e., hasn't happened. The relevant and related problem would arise if an admin decides that a user should be unblocked, but doesn't do it "because the community has made a decision to ban." The "closure" condition described above doesn't exist in that situation, though there still would be the matter of a discussion with the last blocking admin (required), with his or her consent being necessary, or a new discussion. The admin, in that case, could open the discussion, and an argument of "we don't want to discuss this, that's a community banned user," would obviously not apply, if the admin is personally willing to unblock. Complicating this would be the situation where the admin personally willing to unblock has some assertable conflict of interest.... --Abd (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Good work

Thanks for the support. I've got quite a bit of work to do yet in defending the article. Kinsloft (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Signatures

No doubt it's an oversight on your part, but don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages. You've had a dozen or so comments left with just a timestamp or no sig in the recent past. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I must be getting overenthusiastic and hitting the key 5 times. I'll preview. Thanks for letting me know. DGG (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The sims 2 store AfD

I don't think it's going else can be done with that discussion. Is it possible that you could close it as a speedy keep? I would do it myself, but I know speedy keeps are normally done by admin. I already told the nom to merge the article whenever he/she gets the chance. MuZemike (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Protonk (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article discussion

Hi, this is a friendly notice that there is an interesting discussion on the suitability of templates placed on Unruled Paper (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which you may be interested in. In this case, for once, I did not try to PROD :-) but only added POV OR etc tags to. --triwbe (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems likely the film is in fact notable, but the article must be rewritten. There was one tag you did not place that immediately came to mind: "copypaste" . I made some comments there for rewriting the article. DGG (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, and we have been extending AGF to the max and you see what you get in return. That is why I am waiting to contribute my very final contribution rather than inflame the situation. --triwbe (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

BF is real upset about your comments. He thinks you don't think an Iranian can write so well and he's calling you a racist. He's demanding an apology. Just FYI :p AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Walter Koskiusko Waldowski

He's not really a major character. He's only mentioned in a cameo role outside of the movie, and in the movie, his plight is (or should be) mentioned in full in the plot summary for the film. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, find or make a suitable article on Minor characters in... and merge him in there. DGG (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I stated, anything that can be said about the character is redundant to the film's summary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

re: speedies

I actually thought you might be an admin, but I didn't check. I reverted because I thought you were just a regular user. Thanks for the advice. Will do. Calebrw (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

as I mentioned, any user other than the author is perfectly justified in removing a speedy tag, and once removed in good faith it may not be put back. I did it long before I became an admin, with full support from the commentators at WT:CSD, and , in fact, I consider it good practice for people thinking of adminship. If an deletion can be controverted in good faith, it is not the sort of unquestionable deletion for which speedy is suitable. Usually now if I do it I do say Im an admin, jsut to clarify things, andI think I forgot this time round. sorry about that. 02:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, as I might have missed this, and it made my week. Just gave my own reaction on each, not looking to see who else had said what. DGG (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Alexandre Elmaleh de Buenos

Hi DGG, I saw no references to any important paintings, nor does a Google search unearth anything in terms of exhibits, let alone museum representation or publications. The only mention I can find is his insertion into Wikipedia. That's why I 'speedied' it. I've got to head out now, will check in again later. Cheers, JNW (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)::see my note on the talk page there, speedy can only be for nothing that even indicates notability, and he is said to be an important painter and teacher. I too have been searching in google, and cannot find anything, though there should be something there if he is important. So put on a WP:PROD tag, saying what you just said & it will be gone in 5 days. Remember to warn the main contributors when you put on either a prod tag or a speedy--perhaps the article is only unfinished and they know of more information. DGG (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your advice re: procedure, helpful in every way. JNW (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A hand with a copyvio concern?

Hi. :) I've come upon an article tagged for problems at WP:CP with which I could use some assistance, and you were the first person to pop to mind. I wonder, as a librarian, if you have access to Britannica Online. There are what seems to be legitimate concerns that History of Bahawalpur infringes on their article, here. Based on what I can see, I would guess that the article actually duplicates an earlier version, given a discrepancy I noticed. The article says, "There are many historical sites in the area, including Uch, southwest of Bahawalpur, an ancient town dating from Indo-Scythian (Yüeh-chih) settlement (c. 128 BC to AD 450). Pop. (1981) City, 180,263; (1981 prelim.) metropolitan area, 695,000." The source says, "There are many historical sites in the area, including Uch, southwest of Bahawalpur, an ancient town dating from Indo-Scythian (Yuehzhi) settlement (c. 128 BC to AD 450). Pop. (1998) 408,395." It's obvious that there is infringement, of course. The question is whether the infringement is entire or just in the visible section. If you can shed any light on this, it would be greatly appreciated. When I finish with today's ripe batch (a lot today!), I will be moving that one to the consolidated section. If you have input, please feel free to put it here or there. I'll be watching both. :) If you can't help with it, I'll poke around and see if I can find somebody who can. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lacking a reply, I presume that you don't have access either or for some other reason aren't in position to help out. If I don't hear otherwise by tomorrow (as it goes in my part of the world :)), I'll check with somebody else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Signature

You may want to correct your signature on the Hilton AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Chateau Civrac

Per this, I find it a little odd that you can't see a fairly blatant piece of self-publicising spam when it turns up here, especially - as you seem so keen to tell us - you are an admin (do they have special authority when it comes to removing prods anyway?) Never mind, as you suggested I've gone through the more cumbersome process of listing the page for deletion rather than merely tagging it. I imagine various editors (myself included) end up spending plenty of time seeing the process through one way or another. Everyone's time well spent no doubt, I'm already up to twenty minutes of mine. Thank you --Nickhh (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

anyone at al, including the author of the article, may remove a PROD tag. Prods only work if nobody challenges them, and I sometime remove one just because I think its worth a more general discussion. I have no special prerogatives there, except the option of either deleting the article or not a the end of the five days. i am perfectly willing to delete articles, and do about a dozen a day, more, statistically, than 90% of active admins. Anyway, if you are right the consensus will agree with you. That's what afd is for. DGG (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force

Hi DGG,

I noticed your comment re: the disruptive approach taken to the Jewish Internet Defense Force article. .. you make a good point, if the group only gained wide spread media attention a week ago, to judge it as no longer notable needs a window of time. It's actually not going to happen as I have two pieces on this group I know will be published in reliable sources (one op-ed and one academic article).

Anyway what I really wanted to draw your attention to was this discussion [11]. It seems a user tried to poison the well by incorrectly claiming the sources are all "Jewish activist or Israeli". What they mean is that the Jewish press and Israeli press too more of an interest in this article than the more general press. This is not suprising given it is of more interest to their audience. The comment though [12] had IMHO racist undertones, seeking to claim it was only the opinion of the Jewish and Israeli press that the Facebook group JIDF deleted was antisemitic. The sources are RS. The national or ethnic nature of the source is not something Wikipedia judges reliability on. I reverted these changes, and commented on talk, but the user put them back again attacking me personally [13]. Their demands are outside of Wiki policy and seem to suggest that Jews have no right to edit or indeed publish academic work related to antisemitism. This is a huge concern. The users changes were reverted by someone else (good thing to as in addition to reverting my revert, they lost a bunch of other changes editors had made in the mean time). This latest revert explicitly directed the user to talk.

Sorry for the long message, any help or thoughts would be welcome. Specially given there will be two more sources (writen by me) on this topic soon. Oboler (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am deliberating going to keep it general: Even under normal conditions, when Group A has strong opposition from group B, the media of B will report everything true they can possibly find that will be to the detriment of A. When things are nasty, they will also report whatever plausible things they can invent or at least exaggerate. Adherents of A will normally believe as little as possible of B's media, and will refute the false, and often as much of the true as they can as well. It is therefore not irrelevant to take account of who reports what, but neither is it decisive. Even the best neutral media will not always be right in what they identify, either as true or as not true. Given sophisticated propaganda, it is very difficult to actually discern what is the state of affairs. The classic example of accurate but apparently unbelievable reporting from a almost totally unreliable source is Katyn, but there are many others. As an encyclopedia, the best we can do is to say correctly who said what, holding to the principle of verifiable, not truth. We cannot expect to resolve the issues. Getting back to this case, enough has been reported reliably enough to justify an article. Doesn't guarantee that what we say will be correct, of course, but that's beyond our capabilities. As for one-event, it does not apply to events that have significant political significance. In my opinion, we would have done well never to have established the rule, for it is often used wrongly. I much prefer to rely on our true accepted standard, once notable, always notable DGG (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hunter-gatherer fitness and Evolution of the human diet

Following your comments on the talk pages of these articles, I have decided to merge Hunter-gatherer fitness with Evolutionary medicine and Evolution of the human diet with diet (nutrition). --Phenylalanine (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

good move. I'll take a look there--one strong presentation will be much more helpful. DGG (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

List of people from Orissa

I saw your message dated June on List of people from Orissa.

I removed those people, yet someone is reverting my edits. I'm having similar issue on another list see here. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review of Pete Draganic

I have added the information you requested for the page Pete Draganic... actually I added it in the user page, as you asked. That discussion is from August 20 and can be found here [14] --65.43.181.120 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

commented at the DelRev. What you have appears sufficient. Probably similar work could justify articles for many losing candidates for major offices, so some comments from others would be appreciated. DGG (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quirky Nova Scotia society: would an inclusionist want to keep even this?

Hello DGG. I declined speedy deletion of Benevolent Funipendulous Society of Nova Scotia Logotechnicians. Curious to know if this falls in the scope of your definition of culturally-interesting articles that ought to be preserved, though their current state may be inadequate. Speedy A7 criteria were in a gray area. If you think this article merits an AfD I will nominate it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I consider it makes no claim to notability at all, any more than if they had been schoolkids. A group of notable people doing nothing much in particular is not a notable group. But then I have never been very strong on private unpublicized societies. Almost all of us who call ourselves inclusionists think of it variable according to subject, though of course not all the same way. . Challenge then to document it in 3rd party sources, and that should take care of it. DGG (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tim Ryan (academic)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tim Ryan (academic), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Ryan (academic). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Toddst1 (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New Cold War

I just noticed your comments for the deletion review for New Cold War. While the nominator for deletion did, at one point, indicate he believed there was no consensus for delete, I don't believe he ever attempted to withdraw the nomination. Hope that helps clarify. Take care,   user:j    (aka justen)   00:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right--I misread, assuming you he had done what seemed to me reasonable in view of the evidence. DGG (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean assuming "he had done," I believe.  :) Somehow this topic seems to have caused several otherwise sane editors to throw reason out the window (I include myself in that observation, at times at least). Had I known creating the article was going to result in such animosity, I'm not sure I would have gone through with it, but here we are. Nevertheless, thanks for sharing your quite sane and quite reasonable thoughts on the matter at deletion review.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Historic House

Regarding this edit, can you tell me where the policy you cite is located or established? Thanks. Unschool (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

repeated decisions at AfD, 100% for the last 2 years or so. You will also find relevant discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. Incidentally, the material in an infobox counts when assessing whether a minimal article qualifies as a stub. You're welcome to try AfD; it will add yet another instance of keep. Cari, if you're reading this--as you probably are--we really do need a formal statement (or did I miss finding it) DGG (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Will look, been offline with friends visiting from out of town and using an old and borrowed computer. It's timing out on the link but I know that's my connection issues. If it's an NHRP/Museum etc. article, I'll work on it so there's at least context. Am assuming it's not in immediate deletion range. If so, I'll userfy and clean up. but yes, agree with David -- precedent supports the existence of these article though we (as a communuty who write these) need to make sure there's context. Trying to get better about that. Back online in full fource tomorrow or Monday and will look into by that time definitely. TravellingCari 05:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Looked and expanded. I also put a note on the talk page, which I intend to bring to the attention of those working on NHRP since I'm not sure re: family v. property. For now, I believe it addresses the concerns raised at the PROD. I started the discussion about breaking up the material, but also its name. That said -- yes there's precedent that these are notable. TravellingCari 18:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I'd say that that's been fleshed out a bit! Anyway, I have no problem with the precedent that all NHLs meet WP:N, but really, while that might be a policy, you can't blame a bloke for wanting a little something more, even at the start. Personally, I would never start an article like that one, even if it technically met WP:N, because it's a bit rude to the reader. What Cari has done far and away surpasses my expectations; I thank you, and now leave you to your landmarks. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree, it doesn't take that much time to create an article so that the context and notability is clear to those unfamiliar with the subect matter. The way I see wikipedia is that when a reader stumbles across an article it should be apparent from the article's content why we have an article on the subject, even if the reader is utterly unfamiliar with the subject. I completely agree that the substub that existed at the time of your prod did not provide that. Elkman's generator is a wonderful tool for easily completing the infoboxes, but it also leads to the habit of putting just the infobox for the sake of having an article on SubjectX. The generator even comes with a warning, The infobox is NOT enough for a standalone article. You need to enter some more information about where the property is located, its history, and why this property is notable. In other words, don't use this infobox generator to create one-sentence stubs. but sadly it's not always followed. While you're under no obligation to do so, Unschool please feel free to ping me if you find these and I'll do waht I can to clean them up. TravellingCari 18:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a reminder that the WikiNYC Picnic is tomorrow (August 24) from 2 PM to 8 PM. If you plan on being lost, be sure to come ahead of time! To clarify, the picnic will be taking place within or adjacent to the Picnic House in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. I hope to see you there! --harej 03:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

very friendly though small event, some new and quite interesting people. The promise to control the weather was fulfilled as well. DGG (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the advice, I will try and be more constructive in the future. Many thanks Jonnie d smith (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Web 2.0 Toolbar

An article that you have been involved in editing, Web 2.0 Toolbar, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 2.0 Toolbar. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? B. Wolterding (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

made a comment--others are better qualified to search and evaluate than I, so you did very right to take it to AfD . DGG (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of ambassadors

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) as to whether ambassadors are inherently notable. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Pigorini

Thanks. But it may be a few days before I can do much more.I have a difficulty here.Italian scientific publications are a bit hard to reference, articles in "Bolletino" being variously gathered into folios (which aren't quite books) as teaching manuals. And this isn't my subject area (which is entomology). I do know however (I was doing some palaeo insect work in the Pigorini museum last week) that his multidisciplinary (synthetic)approach to archaeology and the social/technical history of early mankind was pioneering and was eventually to inspire the amazing recent studies of Neolithic settlements at Lake Bracciano).I'll clarify and reference this in due course. I need to write round a bit.All the best.Robert aka Notafly (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It'll keep till then. I figured out the entomology was how you got there. As you may have noticed, academic people don't get as much respect here as they ought. I hadn't knows about that lake--what the article there needs is something about connection to later Italic cultures--which more people do know something about. And a map would help. And the discussion of theory that i gather you're intending. I was taught the Neolithic revolution in place by slow cultural diffusion hypothesis, so I am _very surprised_ Thanks! DGG (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at 71.204.176.201's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question on my RFA

Hi DGG, I have answered the question that you posed on my RFA. My apologies for the delay, unfortunately an offer of a visit to Warner Bros. Movie World yesterday was too good to pass up! If you want any further clarification, please feel free to ask. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC).

Jhong-li City Junior High School speedy request

Hi there! I requested the speedy deletion of Jhong-li City Junior High School as it is simply a list of links to other articles. Could you explain your reasoning for declining it please, because I don't see how this can be expanded into a list. This is supposed to be an article about a junior high school (which are generally not notable), and yet contains nothing about the school, but simply a list to articles about other junior high schools (most of which are subject to AfDs or have been merged into Education in Taoyuan County). Thanks in advance! --Ged UK (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

there is no rule against such articles-- See WP:LIST. (alternatively, it can be regarded as a disambiguation page, which is also permitted). The speedy criterion in WP:CSD applies to articles that are lists of external links. More is needed to make it into a good list article, but using lists and combination articles for junior high schools and elementary schools is in fact the usual method of handling them. That, or incorporating them within an article for the school district or the equivalent, and making the redirect./ If that is what is being done, instead of deleting, they should be changed into individual redirects to the Education page you mention. for the ones not there, make the new redirects . DGG (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I realise that Lists are fine, but an article about one school surely should be more than a list of articles about other schools? But anyway, I've been redirecting these all day where there's been some content, I'll just redirect this one to Education in Taoyuan County. I (and others) have been endeavouring to explain that junior highs aren't generally notable, and I think it's finally sinking in with the three users who've been adding all of these articles. Thanks :) --Ged UK (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% that junior high schools are not individually notable, and that they can almost never make individual articles, & have worked towards getting a formal consensus on that. But I think a redirect is the solution here. Doing it in that multiple way was a beginner's poor choice of a shortcut. I leave it to you whether to change to redirects for the schools in the heading, or to make ones for each of them. I would personally advocate doing it for each of them, but I'm not about to do the work. If instead you want to prod, I will raise no objections.DGG (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just been through the articles it linked to, made sure they were all in Education in Taoyuan County, then redirected Jhong-Li to it as well. Tiresome, but i think it's the best way. I know the Schools notability guidelines failed/stalled, but if this is an indication that some government workers want to (rightly) get their schools included on WP, then perhaps it should be resurrected, especially if other Taiwanese counties follow Taoyuan's lead? --Ged UK (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In the about 2 yrs I have been here I have seen every possible schools guideline fail -- but I have seen a practical consistence develop at Afd. that may be because a minority of 1 or 2 dedicated people can block a guideline, but not AfD. I suggest you just assume that merge to the school district is the guideline and proceed accordingly, and my apology if i made things any harder. DGG (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No it's fine. I work in a political environment, I know when something gets bogged down, and I know how to use work-arounds! Sadly there's now a huge bunch of elementary schools to do, but that can wait till tomorrow. Thanks for your help and clarifications :) --Ged UK (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your comments here.    SIS  22:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:further advice

thank you your advice...but my english is not well! you mean that i have to creat one new page it's school list to REDIRECTs Education in Taoyuan County page?--Achiooa9309 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a redirect can only be done from a single article to a single article. You need one for each individual school. But they're easy to create and take up almost no system resources. The point of this is that if someone looks up the school name., they will be go directly to the article of education in the area. But see my discussion with User:Ged UK above, and cooperate with what he is trying to do. DGG (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I usually prod not for sources but for notability. Some people feel that anyone is notable. I try to use wiki's criteria to prod. Some of these people were an "associate" of some criminal. Many of these pages are really fan pages.

Thanks for your feedback. Mynameisstanley (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley

How can you determine notability without checking for sources? I don't attempt to do it--nor do I rely on the author of the article having necessarily done a good job of it either. The purpose of proposing articles for deletion is to get them deleted, not improved, and if an article can be sourced, and show notability, it shouldn't be deleted. The current WP:PEOPLE general notability criterion is substantial coverage in two or more reliable 3rd party secondary sources independent of the subject. (at least when BLP is not involved, as is the case with the articles under discussion) I don't think that's a particularly exact criterion, but it does serve as a rough guide in unfamiliar areas. "Associate," as you correctly note, can mean anything, so it is impossible to go only by the article if it doesn't specify more exactly, and therefore in an essentially unsourced article one must check for the sources. If the article was written by a fan,in this case apparently a fan of american underworld history, that's no reason for deletion--most Wikipedia articles are written by people with that sort of interest in the subject. True, sometime they do a poor job of it. It is then unfortunately the responsibility of everyone else to fix it. According to the basic WP:Deletion Policy, deletion is the last resort. It's often needed--I delete my share of the 1200 or so articles deleted every day here that are impossible to rescue. Please don't make it harder by suggesting deletion for the ones that can be fixed. I am not the only admin who has had problems with some of your suggested deletions. DGG (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Tobias

You argued (quite soundly) for the retention of this article, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tobias}when it was AfD'd]]. It's a horrible mess of bad formatting, NPOV violations and vanity stuff. Could you help me clean up this Augean stable? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

you've made a good start. It will just get confusing if we do it at the same time. I had forgotten just how bad it was. This will need several rounds--it won't be till the worst crud is removed that we can see the detailed peacockery. Tell me when your first round is finished, and I'll do a pass, and then back to you. DGG (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Because you're ridiculous...in the best possible sense of the word. No one works harder in consistently constructive ways. No one. Chubbles (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I second that barnstar. You are a paragon of good sense and your tireless efforts are much appreciated. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pete Draganic

Hi. The matter of the undeletion of the article titled Pete Draganic is still unresolved as far as I can see. This matter has been up for review since 8/21. Can you advise me of the next suitable step to either get a concensus or republish the article? Thank you so much for your time and help.

--Pete Draganic (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion review's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• I replied to your comment on the deletion page discussion. However, I'll be darned if I can figure out how to notify you of this otherwise.

--Pete Draganic (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

List of political parties in catalan countries

Hi DGG.

Just a question from an ignorant: after this one [15], what follows in the due process?

The thing is that I am just concerned that, in the absence of the tag, things will remain as they are now, since no one seems to care about this article (except its creator and some die-hard Catalanists, I guess) and I disagree with lack of comment being taken as approval. I'd rather say it proves the contrary. In other words, I am still for deletion of this article for those reasons mentioned there, please let me know what follows next, so that I do whatever it takes. Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the problem. The first thing to do is to consider if there is any way the article can be clarified or perhaps retitled. I would suggest asking at the NPOV noticeboard, where national issues of this sort are frequent & people who frequently deal with them are watching If you do, please make sure to notify the other users so there's a good discussion. If that fails to give something usable, AFD is the next step. My deprodding was not a statement that the article could necessarily be supported as it is, just that these things benefit from wider attention. DGG (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the hints.

I do no think that the article is salvageable: there is a fundamental problem with that title, but the raison d'être of the article is the title itself, without it, there is no article, that is why I think the article can -and should- not be salvaged.

This said, I understand your concern, too, and I will proceed with the course of action recommended. Just one last thing before so doing: would you please provide the link for that NPOV noticeboard? I am not good at navigating wikipedia's manor corridors and I haven't found it right away... Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Another virtue of doing it via a community process is the decision is more likely to stick. :) The board is WP:NPOVN. Take a look first at some previous discussions there to see how they go. (there is also WP:ECCN, but somehow I think the first might be more effective for this. Your choice.) I'll keep an eye out & comment DGG (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC).

An update

There has been an update to a summary you have endorsed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly#View by Jennavecia. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In case your ears are burning

I mentioned you here. You might want to chime in if you have an opinion on Everyking's inclusionism as it relates to his suitability for adminship.Kww (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate your good opinion,and also your statement of your own position. DGG (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for mentioning it.Odd nomination of the week. I've commented there accordingly. DGG (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New Great Game AfD

I think you should know one of the editors who argued so vigorously against the New Cold War article is now trying to do the same thing the New Great Game on AfD--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I am kind of following your talk page, but I felt that those articles must be kept. I can't understand that kind of deletionism at all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Do Not Delete the Article on the Order of Cosmic Engineers

Hey! I believe you deleted an article I was in the very process of expanding! The name is the Order of Cosmic Engineers. I am not the original author of the article, and I was adding information about why the topic was important plus a number of citations. I am currently gathering material for a book chapter on this group, and I see it as an extension of my work in converging technologies. My Wikipedia username is Samuel Lann, but I am actually William Sims Bainbridge - which you can google. How can we restore the article so I can help expand it? Best wishes, Bill Bainbridge.Samuel Lann (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

you have citations? ok, I'll restore it, with a taq that should keep it from deletion for a few days, and you can add what you can find. I hope they are from 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases) that talk about it in a substantial way, and show that it's important. I am not sure whether Stross's blog will be considered a reliable source, though I am aware that for topics like this there is sometimes nothing really more formal--my own bias is to sometimes accept such sources, but not everyone does. If I think it does not meet the requirements of WP:N, or the sources are not what we would consider Reliable sources I will nominate it for deletion and the community will decide. In the past, articles about gaming clans and similar groups have been treated rather skeptically. I adjusted the format a little--we merely link to Wikipedia articles, not give a full citation--if ther;'s one type of thing we certainly don't consider reliable sources, they are our own articles. DGG (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this warrants far more attention. i've done a quick search and few if any of the sources provided actually even name drop the order of cosmis engineers and are instead used simply to cite other things in the article. For example the first citation simply cites text from a book that is claimed as the inspiration for the organization, not that the organization has said that themselves.--Crossmr (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Improvements will have to come from elsewhere, as it isn't my subject field in the least. DGG (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really talking about improvements.. the sources are basically non existent. The only thing provided which mentions the subject are some obscure blogs. My point was the promise of sources wasn't really fulfilled. I've put it up for deletion as I don't think it meets our threshold of inclusion.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I will argue to the contrary. 02:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify

Thank you for the comments on my talk page. To clarify, it was not the deletion of the smaller articles (one a redirect) that irritated me, it was about the article Epistemic theory of miracles which I was in the process of building into a major article (with links to the other related topics in this area, such as the discussion by Hume which is barely covered in this project). You seemed to suggest it was the small articles that I was getting mad about. Regards Peter Damian (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seemed that they were the immediate context. Reading the main article, I see in fact what the background for those other small articles were, and I suggest that if this is all that's known of them, a redirect might take care of it. As for the main article, I will make some comments there. IYu are right that the deletion of such an article was totally inappropriate, and is the sort of thing that we must continually contend with. The best way f contending is to continue to expand it. DGG (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Hello, DGG. You are being discussed, by User:BehnamFarid, in the AN/I thread WP:ANI#Legal threats and Personal Attacks by User:BehnamFarid. You may want to comment there since User:BehnamFarid accuses you of serious misconduct. Nsk92 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

didn't seem worth responding to. (He has since been blocked by someone else for legal threats). DGG (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)