User talk:DGG/Archive 10 Nov. 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Hoffman (businessman)[edit]

I voted to delete, a rarity that I disagree with you. Can you rescue this one? I'm going home to give out candy to little goblins. Bearian 17:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for coming to my defense. Bearian 16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Just wanted your opinion on this AFD. Jauerback 14:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Childrens series novels--interesting question-- DGG


I'm sorry to bother you, but I expected a response on User talk:Pepve and Talk:Iavardi River (they are separate discussions of course). -- Pepve 18:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Answered again there, though I think I had already done so adequately. DGG.

Category for deletion: supercentenarian trackers[edit]

I thought the person of a 'category' was to categorize and link similar articles. Guess I was wrong.

Ryoung122 02:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

not my specialty, but I think it makes more sense as an article with a list, than as a category--at least for now. DGG (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD Removal[edit]

That was a 'fun' bruhaha. The user who warned me was mass CSD tagging Web Comic articles (apparently in response to a slashdot article). I reverted them due to the POINTyness of it along with another. Eventually he got blocked and all the articles were reviewed. Some were deleted, others have been improved. Thanks for the message! Spryde 10:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A traceip shows problems, which could indicate a proxy to maintain an anonymous ip. I advice against blocking this user after his current block, just a bunch of people watchlist his contributions and revert to show there is eye on him. Though I guess its a throwaway in that case.--victor falk 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I followed it on enWP. DGG (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup[edit]

I've left you an e-mail (mostly about potential places to eat). Thanks.--Pharos 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia! Accounting4Taste 05:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian Wahabi Movement[edit]

I would really like for you to reconsider your removal of the speedy deletion template of this article based on it being an attack. There are some sticking points I see which make me believe there is no possible way it can be reverted to a non-neutral version:

  • The word Wahhabi itself is a derogatory term, as noted in the very article on Wahhabism; there is no group, in Arabia, India, or elsewhere referring to itself as this.
  • Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, for whom this movement is named, not only didn't start any new movement called "Wahhabism", but his personal influence during his lifetime never went outside of what is modern day Saudi Arabia.
  • Syed Barlevi, the person cited in the article as the founder of this so-called "Indian Wahabi" movement, was actually a Sufi, a movement that actually exists and is quite different from what is usually ascribed to "Wahabis".
  • There are no actual citations in the article supporting it's factual or historical accuracy (which as i've already explained is highly dubious).
  • The sole external links is an extremely partisan site that itself provides no citations for it's claims - which are more or less copy pasted into this article - containing simply the same claim of this movement without any proof. The article was written by a medical doctor, not a historian, and the site itself seems to be some sort of a commercial site geared mostly toward selling merchandise, not provided academic and reliable information on history.

With all of this in mind, the article in and of itself at least qualifies as wholly unsubstantiated and possibly created as an advertisement for the above site. However, considering that Syed Ahmed Barlewi was involved, that makes me suspect is as being an attack page even more; the Barelwi and Deobandi articles (about two rival Muslim religious movements in India) are constantly hit with blatant POV due to members of the opposing side, and this wouldn't be the first attack page i've nominated for speedy due to this behavior that's spilled over here onto Wikipedia.
I know I probably wrote way too much information but I just wanted to explain why I had nominated it. Take some time to read this, think it over, and please get back to me when you have the free time. MezzoMezzo 15:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you challenge it, just send it to AfD and convince the people there. You may well be right, but I am not going to judge a question involving any sort of religious or ethnic conflict by myself--others should see it also. That's what AfD is for. Unless its absolutely unquestionable, it can't be a speedy. If it takes argument,AfD is the place to argue. DGG (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Iavardi River[edit]

Dear Sir,

We have had some discussions before regarding the tagging of river articles for deletion. However, user Pepve keeps retagging the article for deletion. I have also been notified that I should not delete the tags. I therefore request your help to solve this matter. I have no intention of not abiding to the rules, but also want to defend whatever I am doing against vandalism.

Thank you in advance for your helpAfil 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If he disagrees with the removal of a prod or speedy he has every right to test the article at WP:AFD. That is what the AFD process is intended for.The place to defend the article is there, where there will be a consensus decision which will settle the matter. There is no point in discussing it here. I am a little puzzled at his insistence, but he has that right. As another admin commented, the article would be helped by additional information. There is no reason not to add it now, while it is at afd. In any case, the AfD discussion seems about to close as a keep. DGG (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Academic notability opinion request[edit]

Wonder if you could take a moment and apply the thumb rules for academic notability that you have developed on M. S. Krishnan. I am not too bothered about the presence or absence of the article, but I came across it while creating an article on a namesake and was not sure it made the mark. Shyamal 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Named professorship at a major university, and chairman of a department. This is normally a particularly distinctive level of full professors, so he is certain to have multiple articles and awards. I cant evaluate the listings of importance mentioned in the first paragraph, as i do not know their importance. I see about 35 papers are listed. Some I know to be in excellent widely known journals, though the more specifically business ones are not familiar to me. I added a few bits, and it needs further touch up, but I think it wil stand. Thanks for checking with me. DGG (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007[edit]

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


I am back. For real. --Alien joe 20:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PROD of Hofstra Retail Management Institute[edit]

I see you point in the PROD. Since I'm working to create several pages to document Hofstra's various centers/institutes would it make more sense to create one "List of Centers and Institutes of Hofstra University" with all of these short and mid-length entries? Mbisanz 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Its an interesting idea to put them with their respective colleges. But some like the National Suburban Studies Center or the Scott Skodnek Business Development Center, aren't attached to a specific college. Any ideas on how to sort those? Also, I pared back the list of administrators. Is it still un-encyclopedic or just belonging in a lower section of the main Hofstra University article? Will keep in mind about citations as I improve them. Mbisanz 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've speedy'd the admin article. I'm still thinking on how to work the interdiciplinary centers one. I know Sodano personally, so I think its a little too close a COI to do him. But Zarb is a notable topic that I really should get around to doing. Rich Guardino was a town supervisor on LI, would that rise to notability to make an article? Also, Bruce Charnov, a friend of mine wrote a major work on aviation history and did a conference etc on it. I can't write his article (COI again) where would I go to suggest it be written. I've seen a bunch of "wanted articles" type pages and don't know which one is the most effective.
I've applied for VandalProof and am trying to get more into writing articles. Besides that, I'd like to become an admin when I get to around 2000-3000 edits. Should I try to edit across different fields or is a focus more on academia permitted?Mbisanz 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Town supervisor usually doesn't make it, unless there is something particularly newsworthy. The key is sources. Get used to looking for them., If you can find 2 or more good 3rd party sources for a subject, according to WP:V & WP:RS, you can almost always support an article.Mayor of a medium size city, or member of the state legislature always does it. for an academic to warrant an article, he needs to be full professor and have written 2 or 3 good books, or several dozen articles. For a non-academic author, 2 or 3 well-received books with good reviews, one a prize winner or best-seller. For a businessman, CEO of a major company (all oversimplified, but you get the idea).
to be an admin, don't rush things you need varied experience at different sorts of work. You need some experience with copyright problems, with disputes, with discussing policy. its OK to concentrate in one subject if you like, though academics is a little narrow. But aim not at adminship, but at doing good work and being respected. Almost nothing I do requires being an admin, besides taking out my share of the garbage. The way to learn what happens here is to hang out at WP:AFD, listen a while, and then start to comment on things you understand. . DGG (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks again. I'm no expert but hopefully the list'll be taken over by others more expert. help and feedback appreciated! :) Best, FT2 (Talk | email) 23:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

Yes, but more of it needs to be done and the fact that IRL my insomnia is starting to verge on mental instability has made that kinda hard. There's now a question there addressed to you, btw. --Kizor 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I recovered. The article was deleted, but you can't have everything, can you? --Kizor (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
from the AfD " not part of the critical/descriptive vocabulary I'm aware of. It might be someday, but not now" -- so try in a few months. If it is really expanded and much better sourced, and meets the objections, it can be Boldly inserted--otherwise it needs to be put on a user page and requested at DRV. If you don't have a copy of the latest version, ask me to send you one. DGG (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RfA[edit]

Admin mop.PNG My RFA
Hey DGG! Thank you for your outspoken support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I truly hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any backup or second opinions! Thanks again. :) GlassCobra 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tall Ship[edit]

DGG, I just wanted to get your opinion on this link being added to this article.. Althought, it's definitely a good faith edit, it's bordering on WP:SPAM, but I'm not going to violate WP:3RR on a borderline issue that I really have no specific interest in. Link. Thanks, 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

removed. warning left. DGG (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Jauerback 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I am a Wiki beginner and put a link to our charity site on this page on 18:20, 27 December 2006 adding to many other similar useful links to other charities in the Tall Ships field. on 19:14, 31 October 2007 Inwind created separate article for list of tall ships and at this time reference to our charity was deleted but many references and links to similar organisations were left in. On putting our link back in a seem to have triggered a response of editors looking for changes such as Jauerback who have never even considered the merits of our link relative to others. This approach seems radom and without effort. Can you give me some guidance on how these issues are properly resolved? Why do you decide to remove only my link and yet at the same time express disquiet about other links? Thank You for helping me. 22:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The really good thing you could do at this point is to get a user account--it's easy and private--and then try to write an article on the organization, which would then justify a see also link from this article. To do that, see the advice at WP:FIRST, and WP:RS. If there have been two or more substantial articles in reliable third party published magazines or newspapers about the organisation, an article is probably justified. If you can find the references, do it--if you put the proposed article on your talk page and let me know, I'll comment on it for you. As f
as for external links, the rule is to link to the main general national and international organisations only. I removed 2 other links at the same time. DGG (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Andrew Kelly[edit]

I think you didn't sign your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Andrew Kelly, (or as I like to refer to it "The Alamo"), unless I'm reading that page's history wrong. Would you check it out, please? Thanks, Noroton 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry found sounding like a fight-starting ass...[edit]

But it's hard to be a pillar of the community when you vote in an AfD without reading the article in question. If, as you state, "The winner would be notable as in any other national competition," then why would you vote to delete somebody who has won? -- Mike (Kicking222) 17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

responded at AfD. DGG

High Schools & WP:OUTCOMES[edit]

I'm working on pulling the result of every AfD ever run on a high school to prove WP:OUTCOMES is correct...

This is what I have so far... --Smashville 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

there is really no need to go much further back. But you might look for UK schools, which I expect will be more variable. And remember that the effect of a redirect is a loss of the content, and ditto , usually, for a merge. Good idea, yours. DGG (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

There is an overlap between dictionaries and encyclopedia. Articles giving merely the definition and etymology of the word, and examples of usage, go in Wiktionary. Articles that discuss the usage--or the etymology--in a substantial way go here--such discussions are not generally allowed in Wiktionary--they consider that information encyclopedic. . Obviously there will be many articles that can be seen from either perspective. The way I look on it is that if the information seems readily capable of development from a subject perspective, then it probably belongs in WP, on the same principle as we have stubs. If it seems unlikely that a subject article could be written, then it doesnt. In this case, there seems to be potential for discussion the concept as well as the word formation. Thanks for the link--I find the invention of these words a very curious phenomenon. On the one hand, the concepts seem to be real--or at least they seem to match what some people perceive in their own feelings and for which there is no standard word. Personally, I dont like this word--I keep spelling it comperson, as a sort of portmanteau between compassion and person.
as for the subject, yes, i did think that might have been part of the reason, and in general I try to support the expansion, not condensation of articles of sexuality. In this case its not really part of polyandry, which is much more limited. The feeling of friendship and love between multiple wives is as much a part of it, for which there is an immense historical record. There's much less literature on the reciprocal, primate males being as they are. There's also of course other possibilities, such as the relationship between a bisexual person's gay and straight lovers. There might be place for a general article, but we'd need a word for it--and here we are back again. DGG (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Antarctica cooling controversy[edit]

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

Theobald Walter, 1st Baron Butler or Theobald Walter[edit]

User:Angusmclellan suggested I head over your way with this problem child. I was working on his brother, Hubert Walter, and created the page for him from his son's entry, which gave the title. However, after some more edits, and consulting the Complete Peerage, it appears that the title may not have existed. I fully admit to knowing very little about Irish affairs, especially the Normans in Ireland, but Angus suggested you might know more? Thanks in advance! Ealdgyth | Talk 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The most reliable reference source for all such topics is Dictionary of National Biography, available online in all UK public libraries, and also in most academic libraries in the US. If you are working in this field, you should try to use it. Consulting it , I find the situation is a little ambiguous--see the article talk page. By comparison, the Complete Peerage is not considered 100% reliable.DGG (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I can get to the University of Illinois' library, but it's a distance away. Generally I don't venture outside my "specialty" as it were, but this was a special case. Thanks for the reference! Ealdgyth | Talk 15:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful directory[edit]

I have found the List of UK locations quite useful and now it is up for deletion:

Comments?--Filll 22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

An application of BIO[edit]

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Commented there, but I'm not much use about web comics. DGG (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater and subcats. Since you participated in the deletion discussion for these categories, you might want to participate in the deletion review. - auburnpilot talk 17:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

scholars vs. academics[edit]

Hi DGG - I have been troubled by the inconsistent Category:Scholars and Category:Academics for a while, and have begun where appropriate to both set up more biographical categories (oftentimes as I'm sure you know scholars are just dumped in their field). I've also nominated a couple of * academics categories for renaming to * scholars (Category:Legal academics and Category:Legal academics by specialty), because in at least some fields (maybe many) there are many non-academic scholars and maintaining two separate trees seems unnecessary. You're the main other person I know who thinks deeply about academic topics, so I thought I'd get your thinking on these issues. Look at Category:Scholars by subject and Category:Academics by subject. Is there a good reason to maintain this distinction? There are implications for the teaching categories, of course. But those don't seem well thought-through, either, and many scholars who are not academics are also sometimes teachers (adjuncts, etc.). Thoughts? --lquilter 17:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

personally, I dislike the term "academics", and I'm glad someone else feels the same way. The present distinction seems to be that "scholars" is used mainly for categories where the people are not conventional academics in the Western university sense. "hadith scholars" is a good example of this. I wsould move them all to scholars. The problem remains of how to handle the ones who could be described as "scientists" -- I think they will have to be in that as well. DGG (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw that possible distinction, too, but it's really a use distinction, I think, and hopefully we can fix it. Scientists, hmm. Of course, scientists could be both a subcat of scholars and a parallel category as a different method of inquiry. ... Well, I'll wait for more discussion on WikiProject Academics and the category pages, and if nothing happens I'll be bold. --lquilter 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 6#Wahroonga Public School (closed)[edit]

Hello, just here to inform you that the deletion of Wahroonga Public School has beenoverturned. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 17:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the Erdos Number categories[edit]

I've formally requested a deletion review towards overturning the deletion of the Erdos Number categories, at this deletion review log item. I don't understand your position on this subject but in consideration of canvassing guidelines it behooves me to mention it to you. Pete St.John 21:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)I appreciate your fairness, & I will see if I have anything wortht the saying.DGG (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Carroll[edit]

Hey, you had done some reviewing of the article on Marilyn Carroll before. It seems that the user who had been pushing pro-animal right info on the page recruited a pro-animal rights admin who has mostly changed the page back into animal rights, rather than biographical material. It's mostly ok, but if you get a chance and could review the page it would be appreciated! Umn student 00:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC) I'll look at the page, but I look as just another person interested in academic bios. No admin has any more priviledge in editing than any other person here. DGG (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher)[edit]

In the below debate,

I'd like your input, not just on whether the article should exist but on whether conduct such as this:

If someone who claims to be a researcher thinks that they are "in charge of the world's oldest people for the entire planet", I have to seriously question whether anything they write can be trusted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What she's really saying is "I can't believe you're that important" and since I think your'e lying, the article should be deleted. All of which is quite ridiculous, as there are numerous ways to verify what I've said as factually accurate.Ryoung122 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I joined the discussion there.DGG (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of George Israel[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, George Israel, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Israel. Thank you. A. B. (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A chance to use your librarian tools[edit]

I have just filled in a redlink for Karen Carr on Introduction to evolution and created a rough draft and stub of an article for Karen Carr. The reason I did this is she was nice enough to give us the rights to use one of her pictures. She has illustrated and published quite a few books. I think we should list them in the article. Can you get a printout of her books? Thanks, I owe you one. --Filll 15:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I will now use the most powerful librarian tool, and tell you how to find this information for yourself, for this article and for all others. Go to WorldCat, and enter her full name in the searchbox. I'll check up on the article later. DGG (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I really appreciate it. What would we do without librarians?--Filll 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)[edit]

Are the Oldest-Old or Final Few notable?[edit]

Greetings, User Brown-Haired Girl has waged a campaign to wipe out the entire 'supercentenarians' field on Wikipedia. This has included:

And, even, a man dead over 100 years:

I find it incredulous that one would attack even the man who invented the term 'folklore' and started the field of 'supercentenarian tracking.'

Such mass hysteria seems to be working. User BHG is one of the top-10 editors by edit count on Wikipedia and has lots of friends.

I do realize that not every article created can, will, or even should survive.

But this is like burning down Washington, is negating an entire field that BHG has stated she couldn't care less about. I do ask that you contact higher-up persons to get more balanced input on these matters.

Sincerely, Robert YoungRyoung122 17:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, WP does not work that way. Every editor is equal. BHG, you, and me, all 3 have an equal voice in any discussion. DGG (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fallout from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boitumelo McCallum[edit]

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

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

Thank you for the clarification. The diff of your response was also quite informative and helps shed light on the pattern of your participation. In response to your comment above, I would like to make two points.
First, I agree that WikiProjects are effective for bringing together and coordinating the efforts of various editors; that's one of the reasons that I consider the Category:Wikipedians by WikiProject category tree to be useful, and am generally hesitant to delete (or suggest deletion of) any page that is used by a WikiProject.
Second, I would be surprised if people watchlisted every user category that they appeared in; it's more likely that they just watchlist the ones they have created. Still, I don't view paternalism to be an issue with user category discussions, since appearing in a user category rarely involves an actual, conscious decision. In virtually all cases, users appear in a category because they transclude or have substed a certain userbox. Their appearance in the category is coincidental and they may even be completely unaware of the accompanying category. – Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology[edit]

Hi there DGG. A request for the above article—which you deleted a few days ago as an uncontested PROD—was just put up by the original creator, Reasonablelogicalman (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine. It seems he wants the article undeleted, and you may want to get in touch with him about it. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC). I have done so. DGG (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sortable wikitables and pop culture deletion noms[edit]

Hi DGG. The sortable wikitable demo is in your userspace: see this diff.--chaser - t 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn[edit]

Hi. I understand you've tried in the past to help Billy Hathorn avoid the endless stream of deletions of his articles. I'm doing the same; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn, and your input would be welcome. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC) comments and certification added.DGG (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Love heart.jpg

Some advice on WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH?[edit]

I've been trying to work cooperatively with an editor whose interpretation of WP:NOR WP:SYNTH is rather different from mine.

Me: I'm a pretty fussy editor with a fair amount of experience constructing original academic work (Princeton BA, London Business School Msc). I'm not comfortable with material that is uncited, or synthesized without citation (that's what sandboxes and academic journals are for). I believe in Wikipedia being open to all editors, BUT with the proviso that we are all responsible for helping move each other to the highest standard.

The other guy: The editor in question seems to feel that wiki should be open to all editors and it is more than OK to arrange things without research, write intros without research, etc. He's got a loose approach and doesn't particularly want to change.[1]

I won't do edit wars and I'm getting rather tired of this kind of editing. At this point I'm just coming across as critical - not much good if I'm trying to improve things. I'm too involved to nominate anything for AfD - it would look like I'm using it to force a solution to a dispute. I don't want to stop working on the topic, but with this mess in the way, I'm worried about creating a content fork if I just go off on my own. The sad part is I can contribute some really solid non-OR stuff if given a chance, but I'm basically being shut out by this guy with his "own editing style".

If you have some ideas or could refer me to someone who might be able to help, I'd appreciate it. Not sure what to do, Egfrank 05:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC) There are really several questions here:

First, the general nature of interaction to improve quality on articles--my main purpose in Wikipedia. I agree with you that there is no good mechanisms here to enforce standards, and that this is a serious deficiency. As you say, solving problems with an article by deleting it is a way to impair rather than improve WP. But I think that academic background is here not particularly relevant. If one has the training, you should have the ability to use it to convince the other party. At present there are three mechanisms to improve quality: formal dispute resolution, informal requests for additional opinions, and compromise. My own approach is always to compromise, provided it does not destroy NPOV. No one person is individually responsible for the quality of an article. And I am perfectly willing to engage in the informal advice you have asked for to help you achieve it.
Second the extent and nature of sourcing in general and the role of NOR, especially with respect to synthesis. I do not altogether agree with saying it is OR "if you can't prove that someone else has published that exact same conclusion" -- I do not accept the word "exact" in its literal meaning, and I consider that we can combine, restate, reword and summarize. Preferably though, we should always try to arrange material so the readers can do such synthesis themselves. Nor do I agree that "any generalization reflects a possibly disputable analysis of multiple (verifiable) facts and hence is synthesis"--in writing an encyclopedia, what we are fundamentally doing is summarizing and generalizing; what we must do is to do it fairly--in some cases, of course, the only possible generalization is that different views exist about what the correct one should be. Thus, I probably take a somewhat more flexible approach than you do, but that's probably because I mainly think of is in connection with a different class of articles, where some degree of obvious synthesis is possible by the application of common sense, counting, and elementary arithmetic, and where some use of what has sometimes been called OR, or at least the use of primary sources, is similarly appropriate. -- The article in question here is not however of the nature where these latter considerations are necessary, being one where abundant good sources exists. In general, though, WP is not an academic work, and academic standards do not literally apply--it is a general encyclopedia for the general reader. I'd summarize my view of the appropriate standard as that of responsible non-academic non-fiction writing.
Third, then, about this particular article Jewish beliefs and practices in the reform movement. I've seen your analysis there, and I've read the current state of the article. Since beliefs and practices in the reform movement differ widely, the matter may be a question of fair use of appropriately chosen quotation--I think that sources could be found to demonstrate very different views of both current and historical questions. I will comment further on the talk page there. But in general I solve such problems in particular articles by keeping a narrow focus... To be continued there, probably tomorrow--I want to think a little more before saying anything specific. My preliminary view though is that the article is unwieldy, and should be split into at two or three sections. (& I have limitations in analyzing one part of it.). DGG (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your willingness to get involved and your cogent comments.
First. ... Generally editors who are knowledgeable in a religious point of view do not get upset over using a term that the religious point of view itself uses to self identify. If anything it is the opposite in the study of religion - one tries to be very sensitive to a community's attempts at self-definition. When linguists make claims about the meaning of words, they generally engage in close contextual analysis. Semantics is virtually inseparable from context. Any attempt to work with Reform/Progressive Jewish thought requires a fairly well developed understanding of secular philosophy as well as the particulars of Judaism.
Second. There are some legitimate examples of synthesis. I think you hit the nail on the head about differences between hard sciences and things like philosophy and religion. I probably overstated the case a bit with the word "any generalization". I think there are definitely generalizations that can be fairly made - you named several of them. Summaries also IMHO are OK and necessary. As are certain frameworks meant to assist the reader in navigating and comparing a large number of POVs in a neutral framework. Wikipedia's standards of inclusiveness are broader than academia. Because we have to consider a wider range of ideas, there may not always be a citable framework that is broad enough to include all the valid wikipedia views in a neutral fashion.[2].
My real concern is uncited generalizations that require trained judgement calls and a fair amount of background reading to properly assess. However, I'm not convinced that HG is fully aware that the statements HG has added do require judgment calls and I have been singularly unsuccessful in explaining it to HG. My overstatement was probably an attempt to encourage HG either to share his knowledge or to read further.
Third. About the article. - I think some discussion along the lines you propose would be most helpful...and fun! My concern is also that the article is unwieldy in its current form, but I'm sure that was pretty clear from my comments on the page.
Anyway I can't thank you enough for taking a look at things. HG's edits raise some really good questions that do need to be explored and discussed. A lot of good could come from a serious discussion. Right now I feel like I'm bowling cricket balls without a batsman at the wicket. Egfrank 18:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
to be fair about it, I'm going to tell HG we've been having this discussion here.DGG (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I just woke up at 2AM to do the same thing. Back to bed. Egfrank 00:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends[edit]

I noticed you edited the Fellowship of Friends article in the past. There is an issue with Conflict of Interest (COI) at the moment and the article has been stubbed and protected and I thought that it would be nice if you could voice your opinion on the Talk page. If you are too busy, that's OK. Thank you in advance. Love-in-ark 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion is now in good hands even without me. :) DGG (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Coles[edit]

In response to the below commentary,

Delete. Let's try some objective documentation. Notability of researchers is demonstrated by the scientific third party recognition of their research. Web of Science finds 22 papers, of which the most highly cited is the one in Science mentioned above--cited a total of 12 times. The one mentioned in JGerontolA has been cited 4 times, the one in AnnNYAS has never been cited. Clearly not widelyrecognized by his peers outside his own institute and its publications. DGG (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently CNN and Sanjay Gupta thought Dr Coles was notable:

Wikipedia's policy is 'no original research' and Wikipedia should reflect was is found in published or online reliable sources. Surely no one would question CNN and Sanjay Gupta? 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WoS reliably documents the fact that even when one of his articles is published in a prominent place, almost no scientist cites it, and I simply copy the WoS numbers. If you want to argue him notable nonetheless because of popular attention to his work, the AfD is the place, not here.DGG (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Image:VforVendettaNorsefire.jpg[edit]

Hi, in March, you made a comment on the above image, which I feel belonged on its talk page, if anywhere... I moved it, if you don't mind. Fair Use requirements, and correct licensing tags were reviewed by User:Addhoc. Cheers, Storkk 10:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC) sure--DGG

Inflammatory Diseases of Unknown Etiology[edit]

Thanks for your help. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 16:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC).

Your question on my RfA[edit]

Hey there.

I've answered your question in my RfA. Since it was out of the way, I almost missed it altogether (yeay for edit histories!) so I tought I'd give you a quick note in case you miss my answer.  :-) — Coren (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On article quality as an AfD criteria[edit]

Hi DGG! The debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_F._Costigan closed before I could reply to your (as always) well-reasoned rebuttal of my argument. I appreciated your taking the time there to write back. I agree that for the most part the AfDs are about notability (first) and verifiability (second), but I do think that when these two are borderline or strongly conflict the quality and usefulness of the article in its present state can be used because badly written or badly researched articles do reflect poorly on the project as a whole. I do agree that he's almost certainly going to become more notable in the future, but again I think that it's easier to write a new article from scratch than it is to write around mediocre prose (as people tend to do if the article already exists).

Anyhow, I didn't want necessarily to continue the discussion unendingly (and in fact, we both would do better to continue the discussion in another AfD, since we're mostly trying to sway the uncommitted!), and I'm mostly on your side in preserving many of the academic articles that come up on AfD, but mostly I did appreciate what you wrote enough that I wanted to let you know that! Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many ways an article can be lacking in quality--in this case it was minimal (rather than the other possibilities of spammy, incoherent, copyvio, disorganized, excessive detail, etc etc.) In this case the material originally presented did not really by itself show notability, and I did not have time to incorporate other material. I will try to find the time if the subject is in my opinion clearly notable, but often not when borderline. It's curious how often academic bios are under-written rather than over-written. I've not the least objection to what you said at the AfD, and I'm glad for the chance for a fuller explanation. DGG (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Batteries[edit]

Thanks for helping out with this article. The creator sent me an e-mail out of the blue, asking me to become involved, and I found the article you saw. I'm happy to see that you removed the speedy tag; if this stays around unchanged for five days with its prod tag, fine, it can be deleted, and if it gets improved in the meantime, great, we have another article. In the meantime, the author knows what has to happen during the five-day grace period. If all else fails, it can go to AfD for a permanent disposition. I appreciate your willingness to step in and make the call before I came back and ... well, I don't know what I would have done, but I'm glad you stepped in ;-) Accounting4Taste 07:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

List of massacres during the Second Intifada[edit]

Talk:List of massacres during the Second Intifada Looking for outside input into a long-term controversy over the naming and scope of this list. As you participated in the afd, please help us out. Thanks. <<-armon->> 11:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that my answer to your question and suggestion for DR will probably get lost in the mess of the Talk page, so I'm reproducing it here:
Several Palestinian bombings have killed Arab Israelis, and other attacks have killed individuals like George Khoury. I'm unaware of Israelis having been killed alongside Palestinians in events mentioned above, though that may have happened. I am aware of one case in which two armed Israelis were killed by the Israeli military. And herein lies the crux of the issue: intent. In the latter case, the mistake is that the victims were identified as enemy combatants, and in the former, the victim was identified as an "enemy" civilian. Whatever language we settle on for the title of this list, we cannot allow it to blur an important distinction, one which is not decided by editors here, but by RS. The events currently appearing here have been condemned as "targetting" civilians - "direct" and "systematic" attacks.[3][4] There have been similarly condemned events carried out by Israelis like the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre or Shfaram attack, and I don't believe that there is any objection to including any relevant examples, Israeli or Palestinian. Rather than redefining the list on the hypothetical premise that there are numerous events that are being unfairly rejected from this list, I think the discussion would be more productive to discuss individually the actual 1 or 2 cases in dispute. TewfikTalk 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Weren't there some press correspondents from other countries killed as well? But my purpose was not to add complications, but as a lead in to a suggestion that the article be titled in a comprehensive manner, though I am not sure of just which wording. But as you say, the discussion is sufficiently confused that another voice there is the last thing that seems to be needed. DGG (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes there was. It was not my intent to say that we don't need outside voices, though at this point a mediation may be most helpful. An outside opinion could do much to break deadlock, but its major weakness is that in cases like this where the dispute centres on minutiae, a major commitment of familiarisation with both the topic and dispute history is sometimes necessary, a commitment that it isn't reasonable. For example both Xoloz and Carlos' comments were made with the stated premise that we were scoping the lists based on personal judgement, but in fact both sides of the dispute acknowledge that the scoping is based on RS, and weonly disagree on the interpretation of some of the RS. Either way thanks for your help. TewfikTalk 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
My experience when things develop into an impasse, what is needed is someone who is not minutely familiar with the controversy, and can see to the underlying difficulties. It seemed from a 1st reading through the talk that the underlying difficulty with the article is the underlying difficulty with the politics, not the details of RSs--whether the Israeli and Palestine casualties are morally analogous. I do not care to express my personal feeling on that one on WP, and I am not sure the article can be worked on without making it evident.DGG (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


I know you like to steer clear of these things, but I thought you might pop on over to talk:parapsychology and give some opinions on a conflict currently simmering there. Specifically, I'm of the opinion that this particular subject isn't relevant so much to academia as it is relevant to the popular culture/mainstream media programs that support it. I think that the current article tries to take a topic that is of marginal interest to the academy and maybe has had a few eccentrics support it (like the famous Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research group) and turn it into an academic discipline. I just think that the paranormal is most notable as a subject studied and funded by people outside of the academy and usually found in such venues as late-night radio shows, tabloid journalism, and sensationalist television talk shows. While it's true that these venues are usually considered unreliable sources for the majority of ideas, I think that in this case since there is such a dearth of respectable sources dealing with these subjects, these outfits may be the place from which the subject derives its notability. Certainly this is where paranormal studies gets most of its funding, for example. I don't object to talking about the occasional academic presence of paranormal research in the article, but doing this to the exclusion of the amateur sensationalism which is what seems to me makes this subject encyclopedic looks like an abuse of various Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV for instance). You're likely to throw a wrench into my argument, but I'd like to see a response from an outside perspective. If you want to comment please feel free to do so. If not, that's okay too. ScienceApologist 20:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I think it provides some good ideas for the direction the article might take. ScienceApologist 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks very much for your note. I'm tied up with RL work at the moment, but I will try to take a look at this in a few hours. Best. -- But|seriously|folks  20:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa[edit]



Thanks for the feedback, I have found, too, that unless an article involving a sexual subject is absolutely dry and boring, people put it up for deletion. That's rather challenging, sometimes. Mindraker 15:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by WP:SOCK BTjian[edit]

Hello, DGG ... I hate to dredge up an old topic, but one of User:Pulrich's sockpuppets, BTjian (talk · contribs), is attempting to cover up their tracks again, here and here ... maybe a warning by an admin would help ... Happy Editing! — 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC). Done. DGG (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

G2B Journal[edit]

Hi David, I assume the message that you left on my talk page concerns the Genes, Brain and Behavior page that I created a few days ago. Thanks for your offer to have a look at it. I was of course aware fo the potential for COI here and intended to ask you this, but then got sidetracked by our "gerontological friends" :-) To minimize any COI, what I actually did was copying the page for (I think) the Journal of Neuroscience and adapt that text to G2B. Shortly after that I discovered the journal box template and copied that onto the page, too. I hesitated to add anything else, because then the potential for COI would be much higher. I'll do that now, following your guidelines and will let you know when I'm done so that you can vet it. Usually I'm pretty good at keeping a certain distance from this kind of thing, so I hope it won't take too much effort from you. Thanks, Wim --Crusio 18:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please have a look. I think I did almost everything you suggested, except adding the name of the EIC in the text, after all, almost all of the editorial work is done by Associate Editors.... --Crusio 19:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
adjusted the index listing a little--the style is to link to the article, which in turn gives the external link. And that reminded me to finally write the article for Biological abstracts!DGG (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for that DGG. I know from experience on Meta that spammers think deleting the section in the archive eliminates their listing - being someone who prefers to do constructive things rather than play catch up I would tend to do as Meta and protect closed archive pages? Always happy to hear advice - cheers --Herby talk thyme 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Appropriate weight"[edit]

Hi there, I just noticed that - on the Mercy Corps article - you took out a list of the regions and countries where the organization works and replaced it with one short sentence. You cited "appropriate weight" as the reason. Could you please explain that to me - I'm genuinely interested. Also, could you please re-do your edit and include all the regions where we work - including The Americas and the Caucasus? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerBurks (talkcontribs) 20:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Replied there, and deleted some more Public relations language. DGG (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi DGG, thanks for your comments. The articles, I tagged with speedy template, most of them did not claim notability at the very beginning. Later on, either they had been expanded (reached to notability level) or taken to afd. As for Richard W. Bailey, now it's been expanded with some ref+ and meet the notability criteria. Thank you--NAHID 08:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, that's one of the problems when articles are tagged within a few minutes of their creation. At that point, the safe thing if it's someone who might be notable, is a PROD. DGG (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Kindly view apology here...[edit]

[5]. I accept the apology, of course. See my comment there. DGG (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


I thought that it was sort of an "etcetera" thing. So non-notable "things" can't be speedy deleted? Where's it say that? I believe you, of course, I'd just like to refer to the page, so I can see exactly what is says. нмŵוτнτ 19:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

according to WP:CSD "No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead" . , and under "Non criteria" "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion."

There have been some proposals to change this, either for specific types of things or in general--you will find them in the WP:CSD talk page archives--they have all been soundly reject, on the grounds that it's harder to tell unambiguously and people should have a chance to look at it. Of course, "things" can be speedy-deleted if they meet another criteria,and any article can be deleted via Prod. DGG (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll list it for deletion then. Thanks for the heads up, and I'll try to avoid speedy deleting "things" in the future. Also, I really appreciate you letting me know, rather than just undeleting it yourself. =) нмŵוτнτ 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never used them much. Perhaps I now will. нмŵוτнτ 19:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal children[edit]

Eeg, I literally forgot! I'm sorry! I will redirect and merge, afd if it becomes an issue. Thanks. Charles 01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already looked for sources on both Alexander and Alexandra of Russia (children of two Alexanders) and have found nothing but genealogies and a mention of the Tsar having a memento of his daughter Alexandra who died at 8 (wrong in the book, she was 6) and nothing else. Nothing to build and article upon. The articles which I did merge have the info in the father's articles and the ones that could be built upon I left, although it seems that anything added would be family-wide information (Marie of Hesse, dying of diphtheria, etc). I have suggested at that talk page to organize a better discussion of the tragedies in the grand ducal family of Hesse rather than creating individual articles. Charles 01:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
it would perhaps help to say on the talk page where and how you looked so others dont duplicate. For Russia there are many specialists at WP who may want to check non-english sources. And my feeling is that for anyone related even remotely to q. victoria there will be multiple published letters in english, but then I am only an amateur for this period. Though some will by now be in google Book Search, most of this will still require major libraries; if you're in NYC, as was hinted above, there's always NYPL. But I can only advise as I'm not planning to do the research myself--once one starts, it goes on forever. (I agree that articles on a noble house are a good way of organizing things). DGG (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the Carnegie Council being on the spam list[edit]

I commented here, agreeing with everything you said:

Lets keep the comments about this on Hu12's talk page. i will watch the page. Travb (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

what Hu12 said on his talk page just now is right--this discussion should continue on the spam talk page, not our personal pages. DGG (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi - slightly IAR, but I deleted those articles as the author was on a creation spree and I was trying to dissuade them from creating any more obviously NN stubs, and instead trying to get them to create a "List of .. characters". So they did create the "List of ...", and then created the individual articles again! So, yes, AfD it has to be now. ELIMINATORJR 12:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Article's name change request[edit]

When you have some time, can you drop by the Road pricing Talk page. I am requesting your help as an administrator to resolve on this request, and also to change the name of the article Electronic Road Pricing, which is really country specific, see the Talk page too. I am asking for your participation because in a previous AfD you participated, you were very objective and neutral, and helped to avoid deletion of that controversial article. Thanks Mariordo (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Antonio Barbucci[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Antonio Barbucci, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Barbucci. Thank you. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)



Although CalorieKing is a "commercial" web site, I don't understand your reasoning behind this, as the service referenced here (the food database, which is the most comprehensive freely available database on the web) is totally free and without advertising. I added it to this page under the "Food Databases" header as it expands on the USDA database with a vast database of fast food outlets and brand name foods (the USDA database contains only very limited data on non-generic food). CalorieKing also recently entered in to a partnership with the Joslin Diabetes Center to promote prevention of type 2 diabetes through food awareness, utilising CalorieKing's *freely available* food database. There's more about CalorieKing at the CalorieKing page.

--WarrenGuy (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, why remove CalorieKing, a free site, with no advertising, but leave in "Nutrition Data", which has an inferior database, and is a commercial site loaded with advertising? All's fair that is fair, but it seems that there is a double standard being applied here and I don't quite understand it, unless you are affiliated in some way with "Nutrition Data"?

--WarrenGuy (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right about Nutrition Data, so I removed it. The general practice, as explained at WP:EL, is to avoid commercial sites if good non-commercial ones exist, especially those supported by official government agencies and similar organisations. If you wish to include your own company's site, make a case for it on the article talk page--the Nutrition article is the target of a great many attempts to add external sites. DGG (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No problems, thanks. --WarrenGuy (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments from talk page[edit]

I assume this edit was by accident: [6]. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (Yes, it was accidental, especially as I agree with you on the point. I see you have restored it. I added an apology.)22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Side note on small towns[edit]

Hi. I must disagree with your comment from your deProdding of Booth's Harbor, Ontario. While cities and towns are all considered notable, articles about tiny, unincorporated villages have been AfDed before. One fairly recently, as I recall. :) Collectonian (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are sent to Afd, and, if real, they are kept. Neighborhoods are another matters, as are vague names for unidentifiable places. I do not recall any exception about actual villages, but I may be wrong. You are fully entitled to test if the consensus still holds. DGG (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mental problems[edit]

Sorry but i was talking about 's DISCUSSION of mentally unstable users above on VPP. Sorry if you misunderstood. BradTimlin (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Yes, I did misconstrue. Its the sort of thing where you need to word it very carefully because of careless readers like myself . DGG (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A favor regarding a deleted page[edit]

Hello David, I've been working on various World of Warcraft related articles as part of WikiProject Warcraft. Many WoW articles get deleted because of notability concerns, and much of the time it's deserved, especially with articles about game characters (there are thousands of them). However there was one major character (Jaina Proudmoore) who had her page deleted without any information being preserved. There is an article that contains a List of Warcraft characters and information about each, but she is a very glaring omission. I'd rather not have to write up her information from scratch, and you stated on your user page that you have access to information on deleted articles. If I could get that info somehow it would save me a lot of time and I'd really appreciate it. Thank you! -- Atamasama 01:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As the article is not copyvio, I have moved it to your user space as User:Atamasama/Jaina Proudmoore. Please keep it there only if you are going to work on it immediately for resubmission or incorporation elsewhere--not more than 2 weeks at the most. Otherwise, copy the information you need off-WP. When done with it, request deletion by putting on top the tag {{db-userreq}}. DGG (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You're a life-saver, thank you so much! -- Atamasama 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Further reading on Liberalism[edit]

I am curious to know if there is anything that might be done to rescue the Further Reading on Liberalism page from the "articles proposed for deletion" category. I have after all seen similar lists elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I believe the bibliography list is an important resource for somebody interested in liberalism to have. What edits and/or additions would you suggest be made in order to make the article more encyclopedic?

--Rubbersoul20 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)\

Perhaps it will make the article stronger if you specify how the items were selected , with attention to the guideline that WP does not contain indiscriminate lists, and that some objective criterion is necessary. (the actual article title is Additional reading on Liberalism). i have some doubts anyway, as in my opinion WP articles should have references, and selected further reading, and lists of author's works, but not full bibliographies on subjects. But I'd like to hear how you did the list--as well as the shorter list in the article on Liberalism. DGG (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Hersov[edit]

You recently prodded the article Robert Hersov. This was contested by the author, so I have moved the discussion to AFD. You are invited to join the discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Hersov. AecisBrievenbus 11:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (where it seems headed for rapid deletion-- DGG )

Are you...[edit]

David Goodman - the producer of Family Guy? —Qst 21:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

check the article: I have no middle name or initial. (That still leaves an ambiguity, but I do not live in Ohio.) DGG (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
So you fought in the Indian Wars? <confused> :-/ Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no way of knowing, since there seems to be no WP article. DGG (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
So then you're a member of the Ohio senate! Neal (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

Brent Blake restored[edit]

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

Your concern was "building the world's largest laval lamp. probably an hoax, doubtful notability in any case" GRBerry 22:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC). will do,as I think the notability is absurd--even though apparently not a hoax, based on sources given at the DelRev.DGG (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oak Hill Berry Museum[edit]

Your warning sign was removed by Wikipedia administrator Ben Boldt that he agreed it serves as one of acceptance museums on list of his article. It is not just a local college museum, it is presenting more than college founder, there were part of Rome, Georgia history, visits from Henry Ford, founder of Ford Motor Company several times, Theodore Roosevelt, and one of American Civil War history; however, this article is under construction as not "full article" completely yet. He agreed that Rome Area History Museum is also accepted as I plan to make a new article soon as history of Rome, Georgia including surronding areas. I am original author of Wikipedia articles - New Echota and Chief Vann House Historic Site which were accepted by several Wikipedians because of most famous cherokee history so I have not broken any policies but I do dare you to remove New Echota and Chief Vann House Historic Site if you are really a historian more than just a wikipedian. I am a historian with BA and I have reviewed policies before I created this article. Remember your warning sign was removed from Berry Museum by administrator Ben Boldt. I placed your warning sign from my talk page in talk archive page because the policy stated that I cannot removed them, only moved them no matter if they are right or correct. I am not accepting if you place a blame on me what I do nothing wrong. Believe me that Wikipedia does not want me to quit because I have done well on information, evidence, and pictures I took. I took pictures for Adairsville, New Echota, and Toys R US (Rome store) are now properties of Wikipedia Commons that I took before. Historian policy: "Research, Find evidence, Find support what you say, and Find a proof what policies agreed." I will let you know when I completed Berry Museum, Rome History Area Museum, and Chieftan Museum, home of famous Major Ridge that is under Trail of Tear and Georgia's Park History Dept. Have an Ancient Day. (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion is only proposed deletion and anyone--not just an admin--is entitled to remove the tag if they think otherwise. It is used for things like museums precisely because none of us are infallible. The warning on your talk page is an alert intended for your benefit to make sure you've seen the proposal -- so you can improve the article or contest the deletion--it is not a criticism. In any case, even if it were non-notable, making articles in good faith that they should be considered notable is never against policy. I suggest that you add the {{underconstruction}} tag to the top of incomplete articles that you are actively working on--it can help clarify the intention. It is not used often enough, but was designed for the very purpose. Incidentally, by "Chief Van Museum" I supposed you mean Chief Vann House Historic Site, so I already made a cross reference redirect for it. You can archive as you please; you could even remove though it is strongly discouraged, since everything is always in the page history and removing a warning is taken as evidence that you have seen it. Keep up the good work for the encyclopedia. Don;'t take it personally when people here or elsewhere challenge things you work on--take it as an indication that they might need to improved to clarify the importance. As a historian, you want to write so the readers understand, dim as they may be. DGG (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy reinstatement- did I error?[edit]

Hi, I saw your post at Talk:Hartsdown_Technology_College and everything you wrote makes sense to me- however, since I frequently make procedural errors (and would like to stop making them)... did I error in reinstating the speedy after the original author again deleted it? Or did you just want to make it clear that you were now removing the tag as another editor (not the author) for clarification? Thanks, Epthorn (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

people certainly should not remove Speedy tags on their own articles, and they should be given a warning on their talk page when they do-- the warning template to use in general for this is {{subst:uw-speedy2|Article}}. However, since you thought it wasn't a valid speedy--and it wasn't-- and since anyone except the author can remove the tag, it would have been simpler if you had just done so. The warning would still send the right message. Since I'm an admin, I say I am when I remove a speedy , but that's just to make sure no one adds it back in error; you need not be an admin to remove speedies. In fact, it's good practice. DGG (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Touché. I didn't even think of that... shows I haven't had enough sleep last night. The user appears new and or inexperienced (pot calling the kettle black) so I'll post another of those warnings on his page and remind him/her about signing. Thanks for the reply! Epthorn (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Eliminating one of the Powelliphanta duplicate articles[edit]

Thank you so much DGG, that did fix it, just as you said! I really appreciate your advice. I did not realize until now that I had met you at the WP event in Central Park! Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hartsdown Technology College[edit]

I was impressed on your edit on Hartsdown Technology College, as I am a student there. So I would like to know, how did you know so much?

--Jay (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


How can I become a Admin?

--Jay (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

work here productively for at least 3 or 4 months. That means: contribute in an important way to at least one or two substantial articles to show you know what writing for WP is about in the first place, participate in some of the many necessary clean-up projects to show you care about quality, work on some vandalism and COI so you learn to deal with even the difficult people here, learn about policy--start at WP:SIMPLE and go on from there--and then refine and demonstrate your knowledge in practice by participation in some XfD process and in policy discussions in WP space. and have some good reason for wanting to be an admin in the first place--we always need help, and new people, but many of the best and most respected wikipedians have never become admins, and never wanted to. Since it's me you ask, you can see from my logs that I have needed to make very limited use of the admin buttons, except for doing my share of removing the garbage. DGG (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology[edit]

Good work on this one. I've changed my !vote per the Heymann Standard. Thanks for letting me know. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)[edit]

As a past contributor to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. schools) I was wondering if you would be willing to add you current possiton in or concensus straw poll. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)#Guide to help determine consensus This notice is being post to the talk page of all users who have shown any interest in the subject regardless of their position for or against. Dbiel (Talk) 20:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Astrid Award[edit]


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

British History Online[edit]

There wasn't one. I created the redirect. I wanted to document the existence of the library, but did not consider the information I wanted to document to be enough for an article. Seemed to me a one liner in list of digital library projects was the way to go as I do not consider "British History Online containing some of the core printed primary and secondary sources for the medieval and modern history of the British Isles." and a footnote too much text for a list such as the list of digital library projects. Indeed I would have thought that all the entries should have the one liner and a footnote with or without the text. Please let me know if you are going to create an article or if you are going to restore my edit. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving![edit]

Photograph of pumpkin pie.

I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Hewitt, Wisconsin[edit]

Thank you for preventing the speedily deletion of Hewett, Wisconsin. I wish the editor who did this would explain why the article shouls had been deleted in the first place. Thank you- Happy Thanksgiving Day also.RFD (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I did put an explanation on the discussion page of the Hewett, Wisconsin page. I am glad this is working out. Thank you-RFD (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question on AfD[edit]


I am a relatively new editor here, and while I spend most time on vandal patrol, I came involved in an AfD controversey that left me scratching my head .... and I am looking for some insight before I ever go tagging any pages.

The article in question is Bonny Jain.

After reading the details on why an article should be deleted, it mad esense to me that the article should be deleted: 1. bio was about a person only notable for one thing; and relatively insignificant at that. 2. the bio was apparently created bythe subject (conflict of interest) 3. aside from vandals, only the creator seems to have actually edited the article.

Someone (not me) tagged the page for deletion, it was contested, and there was no concensus reached. It then got tagged as being supported by the academia biography group.

While I did not tag the article for deletion, I was pretty sure that it seemed to be meeting the criteria for deletion. Before I ever tag an article for deletion (which I feel I am now reday to start doing), I wanted to get another opinion on why I was wrong about this article.

Feel free to reply on my Talk Page. Many thanks for your time and consideration in advance. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus last time around, as Jreferee correctly concluded-- you might ask him as well for his views. I'm not sure myself. I didn't comment at that AfD, but I've usually said non-notable for such subjects unless the person is the winner of a major national event, since he won the National Geographic geography bee, the the qy would be whether it is important enough as such an event.
There is no actual consensus here on a great many things, including that of people involved in a single event. Obviously at one extreme some will be notable, and equally obviously many will not, but there seems no clear way of deciding in the middle. As a result, the decisions at AfD vary from time to time, even for almost identical articles. If you take this to Afd, the result is therefore unpredictable. For some related current discussions, there's the Afd on a Kid Nation contestant, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guylan_Qudsieh, & the one on a Virginia Tech victim, [[7]] -- at both, a variety of views have been expressed in some detail.
But some criteria you mention are generally considered not relevant: COI s a reason for close suspicion, not for deletion--a great many articles on people start out with COI,and get improved by other editors. And any articles have only one principal editor, who says what there is to say. it doesn't have to attract general attention to be notable. The usual advice is to see if you can find something more to say yourself.
Personally, I'd advise you that if you want to find articles for deletion, I think there are worse things by far in WP, and if you want to help resolve the general problem, very little chance that discussing this article might get us to consensus about it. But you'll have to find your own view on these things, and participating in AfDs and policy talk pages, and seeing how people take your comments, is the way to develop them. DGG (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the great advice (here and on my Talk Page). I have not been actively seeking out articles to delete. Rather, I occasionally find myself deleting vandalism and looking at an article where the thought crosses my mind. I think I will try to give more time to observing and then getting involved in some AfD discussions. Again, thanks! LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

School consensus[edit]

I've created a project page: Wikipedia:SCHOOLCONSENSUS, because of a village pump proposal. I thought you'd might be interested in participating. --victor falk 06:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Banning Tony Clifton eh? You got some guts. You better watch out so his dangerous ninjas don't find out >.> --Kaizer13 (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farid Babayev[edit]

I'm sorry, but I can't see where he is notable. The Yabloko article does not mention him, and it drew < 5% of the vote. To me, this is like having an article about a Green Party member in the US that never won an election. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 08:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I will take another look, and comment at the AfD, which is the place to discuss it.DGG (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

James Hard[edit]

Hi! I did find an additional citation for the James Hard article. It came out of one of the Rochester, NY papers. I have no problems if the article would be declared notable. I also have no problems either if for some reason the article got deleted. What is more important that I went to the Last Surviving United States War Veterans article and put 2 of the 3 citations contained in the Hard article next to James Hard's name in the Last Surviving United States War Veterans article. To myself, it is far more important to preserve historical citations in an existing article rather then an article that for whatever reason could very well be deleted. The 2 citations were the Genealogy Trails website/the Rochester, NY area paper Bingmingham, NY?? Again- thank you for your help and patient. Thank you=RFD (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a newspaper ref., and added it to both. You might check if it's the same as the one you had in mind. If not, add yours. DGG (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
That reference is the sameone as the one from Genealogy Trails. I will be removing it since it is a duplicate. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Look at it again-I will keep it as is for both articles. Thanks-RFD (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

--Kizor (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Your threats...[edit]

Hi DGG: See my response to your unjustified threats at User talk:IZAK#follow-up. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing for articles[edit]

Hello, DGG. I see you are a librarian. One of my challenges has been finding reliable sources. Are there resources available on the web or elsewhere that I might not know about? Are there particular resources that I should ask for at my reference department? Thanks. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Heinrich Berann NPS Yellowstone.jpg
Thank you for your participation in my RfA

Comment on closed RFA[edit]

You might not have realized that this RFA has been closed for almost a month. [8] — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

apparently I was reading the comments and not the headline. I do not immediately see from my user contributions log just how I happened to get there. I apologize for being stupid, and also for not having commented in good time when it might have been some use!. DGG (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecclesiastes 2:10-11[edit]

I loved your idea for this new project. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy discussion[edit]

Hello David. I noted that you voted 'Oppose' on RfA of DO11.10. Can you please explain me the importance of policy discussion? I am still relatively new to Wikipedia. How can I get involve in policy discussion. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

there seems to be some considerable disagreement with my position--I opposed adminship for this really excellent editor whom I hold in the highest regard because of lack of experience in policy-- so I'm speaking just for myself:
what admins do is policy, and we have the mop because we are considered both to know it, and second to apply it impartially. I rarely use the admin buttons except to delete trash I encounter, but this requires knowing what is considered trash--not my own view, but the consensus view as set forth in the policy pages, discussed in their talk pages, and applied at XfDs--anything else, however impartial, would be ITSEEMSLIKETRASHTOME. And I must explain to those who feel I've decided wrongly in a particular case, one way or another, so I need to know the correct decisions and rules to point to. When I encounter a situation where it's unavoidable, I do block and protect, and I need to know just when it is considered unavoidable--and convince someone who will inevitable think differently. I can almost always convince people without doing this, but that's aided by their knowing I do have that possibility, and can show them so from the policies and the way they're applied here. The over 100 people who supported me at the RfA judged that I knew them on the basis of my previous work discussing how to apply them. How else could they have been able to tell?
to learn how to use policy, first watch XfD or other policy based discussions, then read the pages & preceding arguments that are referred to, then gradually join some discussions yourself, and learn further from what people think of your views. It's not a matter of memorizing the policy pages, but learning how to apply them to actual situations here in a way the community will accept. DGG (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, DGG, thank you for the reply. Now, I understand your views better. It is a bit complex. In future, I may need you help. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help (and kind words)[edit]


Thank you for your help in defending the pages that I created and for your kind words of my defense of them.

I really appreciate your help.

I must get around to thanking all the others.

Fruminous (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dutch Masters (cigar)[edit]

I understand that you removed the CSD tag from the article Dutch Masters (cigar). Please cCould you expalin your actions to TomStar81, as I beleive you did not add any content or references that would suggest his actions were incorrect. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC) its a famous brand, and wa not written as spam. Anyone but the author, admin or not, can remove a speedy. DGG (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC) I just added some references as well.DGG (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Even today, this user continues to cast aspersions of bad faith in the AFD for Gil Student. Earlier, he said that the nominator (me) was pursuing a bad faith nomination due to personal animosity against Gil Student. (He has decided that I am a Lubavitcher, and since Student criticized Lubavich, I must have incorrect motivations). Then on his talk page, he and another User talk about how they have to take a stand against the Lubavitchers. Today, he continues to push his theory that "Lubavitchers really hate him" in edits that he marked as minor.--Meshulam (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference in Barschall article[edit]

The Physics Today reference you added to Henry H. Barschall has a trailing "5. Henry H. Barschall and J. R. Arrington". That seems a bit odd. What does it mean? Rl (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Apparently just a stray number from a reference list & I have removed it. But I need to check with the actual printed copy in storage, for it may also be an editorial comment about it in the introductory matter for the issue. That article needs some serious expansion. I will do a first pass from the obit in Physics Today. DGG (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask you to have another look at that article? After your edit, it comes now with a rather prominent red warning "Cite error 4; Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content". It might be worth checking the text thoroughly (wheeler is lowercased, "he first discovery" should probably be "the first disovery", and the trailing "5. Henry H. Barschall and J. R. Arrington" I mentioned before is still there and doesn't seem to make any sense there. Rl (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hadn't quite finished, and I had not yet saved my intermediate state. I've done it now, and caught one or two of the typos I'd overlooked--thanks for mentioning them. DGG (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

eprint archives[edit]

Hi DGG - I responded to your (old) comment on Category talk:EPrint archives. Discussion should probably be there ... --Lquilter (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge management[edit]

Thanks for your comments; I tried to reconstruct the page in accord with your perfectly correct and appropriate instructions. As soon as it settles down, it would probably be best to archive the entire previous discussion. The various people involved should be grateful to have their indiscretions hidden. DGG (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment and your help. Jauerback (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


It has been almost 2 years since I registered with Wikipedia. On the whole it has been fulfilling and interesting. You share your knowledge and work with others. WikiProject Wisconsin is an very good example. And you meet some great people. However, the various edit wars/ feuds in Wikipedia bothers myself especially with the level of viciousness, lack of civility and kindness. This bothers myself. Some reflections and thoughts. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems the remnant of the geek culture, as exemplified by Usenet. When I came here, I couldn't believe that WP:BRD was a recommended behavior. See what you can get away with, is what it says, and if someone wants to challenge you, then fight about it. DGG (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
many thanks for your comments. This particular issue involving Wikipedia has been a concern for myself ever since I got involved. I became more painfully aware of this in the last 2-3 months. Thank you for your comments.RFD (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Laura Whitehorn Article[edit]

I am writing to ask your help to correct the tone of my article, which you have called "absurdly hagiographic, with considerable elements of coatrack." My intension was to write a well researched, well cited, neutral article on someone who's life of activism is still unfolding. Could you point out which sections you feel have a POV bias? And what your recommendations would be accordingly? Thank you in advance.Ossu (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Made some comments on the talk page, and some prelim edits. Regardless of one's sympathy, WP is not a political pamphlet. DGG (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Theodore Theodorsen comment[edit]

Thank you for your recent comment on the deletion of Theodore Theodorsen theory of Relativity. I still don't get what this guy "andy" is doing by constantly removing any mention of this mans work in this field. I recently posted just a blurb on his main bio page and it was removed by "Andy " the next day. I will include below the copy that was recently deleted. Please, in your opinion, is this such a bad thing to include in this mans bio? Just for fun I typed Britney Spears and I was floored at the mindless dribble that is allowed in Wikipedia. Yet this mans work is sharply destroyed by obscure people like "andy" with clearly no knowledge in this field.

  • As a physicist, and long-time skeptic about Einstein theory of relativity, Dr. Theodorsen sought and developed explanations to replace those involving curved spacetime and abstract mathematical fields. In essence, Newtonian theory is modified by only a "quantum" change to yield Einstein's results.

A Paper entitled "RELATIVITY AND CLASSICAL PHYSICS" by Dr. Theodore Theodorsen was Published by GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS Volume 6 #4 July/August 1995.To request a free copy email his son, The family of Dr. Theodorsen supplied his manuscripts to GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS and they were Edited by Physics Professors, Howard C. Hayden University of Conn., Thomas G. Barnes, University of Texas at El paso, Pavel Fyedorovich Parshin, Academy of Aviation St Petersburg, Russia, and Cynthia K Whitney, Visiting Industry Professor, Tuffs University, Medford Mass. "Fundamentally the mathematical entities of the Einstein development have been redefined into rational physical quantities and rearranged in an organized classical framework. Einstein's "space-time" has been eliminated and replaced by ordinary (conscious) time. Dr. Theodorsen long ago noticed discrepancies in the statements of Eddington and others and after years of attempts to disentangle the matter he was finally able to uncover the key to the solution of the problem of relativity in its relation to classical physics. It was then possible to write down new relationships based on the classical three dimensional space with time as a separate and independent variable. The amazing simplicity of physical relationships in the gravitational field of the Sun (or of any massive body) revealed in Dr. Theodorsens paper, is the clue to the quantitative agreement between the results of this classical treatment and those of General Relativity. Dr. Theodorsen would, however, probably not have arrived at these amazingly simple solutions if it were not for the previous existence of the Lorentz and Einstein mathematical models which made the physical interpretation of the mathematical equivalents possible."

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by GPA (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me-I did see what was happening, and I will comment at the talk page there. I think there should be a paragraph in the article, but that it needs to emphasize that the theory is not accepted or even much noticed by physicists in general. different people want information about many things, and in an article about pop singers, you can expect to find information appropriate for the subject. Compared to the nonsense written about them in other places, WP is relatively respectable. DGG (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

For the thoughtful statement at my user talk. Much obliged. DurovaCharge! 14:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Diane Zak[edit]

I created this article/stub a few days ago, and since then, it's been {{notability}} tagged. Personally, I feel it meets the notability requirements, but I'm biased, so I'd like your opinion. Jauerback (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What that article needs is some references to her work. What would be usual for an author is book reviews in major sources. Incidentally, you might want to format the list of publications so related works are together and additional editions of the same book do not have the same emphasis. Otherwise, it looks a little indiscriminateDGG (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I realize it definitely needs some work and that a book review would be helpful... bordering on necessary. Unfortunately, I haven't found any, yet. I guess I justified it to myself that being an academic professor and an author of numerous books where some have been used in classroom instruction qualified her enough. I'll keep looking. Jauerback (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You might find some on Google Scholar--if not, any librarian can help. DGG (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks for dealing with my CSD's. On a related note... you reverted my change here. I really think this is spam. If you go through my contributions you will see systemic additions of similar links (Cabot and Little Rock). It really really looks like spam to me. Thanks. -- Swerdnaneb 01:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at them again myself, and I am just not sure. In general it makes sense for the main chamber of commerce site or municipal information site to be listed for a community--its likely to be the place on the web with the best general information, tho of course some of what is there will link to local businesses. But the name of this one does in fact look a little tricky--conceivably it's unofficial spam--but conceivably they are just writing appropriate page pages for a lot of local communities. A frequent place for this sort of discussions is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam--but I think some people there sometimes are over-quick to class things as spam--and some people there seem to think I am too reluctant to do so-- I'd suggest you poke around a little first on your own before bringing it there;. I'm probably not going to follow up this one myself, too much else is happening, what with ArbCom elections. DGG (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The company that runs that site drives traffic to their sites via viral marketing. I have dealt with them on a few other forums and sites. I have removed that link and posted the official home page. Also tons of vandalism and spam there as well that was overlooked ;) Cheers! spryde | talk 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
glad that's cleared up. Thanks. DGG (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I kind of put this out of mind... Thanks for the help, sp!!! I have some more diffs (here and here). I'm glad I'm not crazy and my spam sensor isn't completely out of whack. :) -- Swerdnaneb 21:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Oklahoma Storm Team[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Oklahoma Storm Team, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oklahoma Storm Team. Thank you. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (I just !voted weak delete at the AfD)DGG (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam discussionon ILO[edit]

David, I just read this thread through and wanted to let you know I think you got rough treatment. I certainly don't think of you as having an opposing interest and I welcome your input at the project. It seems a shame a well intentioned effort by a member to have us consider our actions seemed to be responded to so defensively. While I may not agree entirely with your posts, I certainly don't think they show anything other than concern for Wikipedia. I hope it doesn't put you off participating in the project further. -- SiobhanHansa 17:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I really do thank you for your concern. It takes more than that to put me off, & I will be reverting spam when I see it, and going to the project for problems, and commenting when I think appropriate, just as always. DGG (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Hi David, I was in a quandary about all that post RfA spam, some people love it some hate it, so I posted a message thanking everyone who voted on my talk page. But I wanted to tell you specifically that I appreciate and have taken to heart your comments during my RfA. You made a number of exceedingly valid points and asked some great questions. I was secretly hoping you would ask more, I actually enjoyed answering them, but then I'm weird that way(?). I hope I don't screw up, but I am counting on you to tell me if I do... Cheers--DO11.10 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I lvery much look forward to working with you, as an admin and otherwise. DGG (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sara Kit Contenli[edit]

I wasn't going for A7 as a person, but as web content. If the author had written this as a section of an article on the non-notable webcomic itself, it would be deleted in a second. Why should we not extend that rule merely because the article is on only one subtopic of the comic? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

actually, i carelessly saw comic,not webcomic. Technically, it does fit as web content, & would fit the areas for A7. But I think its just as well that more than one or two people see this--the idea is that for any work of claimed creative art, more people should have a chance to recognize it as notable. If you'reright, it will go soon enough on prod. DGG (talk) 03:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

throwing up my hands[edit]

sometimes i am just driven crazy. here i am way too late at night writing up the Helen Hay Whitney award, which is one of the top life sciences postdocs; i link the stellar fellows and science advisory board members. but there are so many red links! and these were mostly Academy members. it's just unbelievable. Freaking Gerald Rubin is a redlink. I can't take it any more! I had to vent to a fellow wikipedian who could share my frustration. Now I'm going to bed. The Helen Hay Whitney Foundation will have to wait. --Lquilter (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

However, I am not certain we would be able to defend that receiving any postdoctoral award is automatic notability, or membership on any advisory board. DGG (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
... no, no -- i wouldn't claim that receiving the postdoc fellowships is notable; just that the most prestigious awards should have their own articles. Anyway I am calmer now. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
of course they should, and notable recipients--i.e. those with existing wp articles--can be listed. That shouldn' pose any problem. I think any multicollege award beyond the graduate student level can be handled this way. (And probably most multi-college graduate and possibly even undergraduate awards) The red links you're referring to are then probably the ones at List of members of the National Academy of Sciences . DGG (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just frustrated that so many notable people were still redlinked! Sometimes it just makes me crazy that we have so many articles about random 90-minute fictional characters on random TV show X, and are missing really notable scientists. Happy editing, Laura Lquilter (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet (Lavery)[edit]

Thank you for not speed deleting my (all too short) article. Robert Greer (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Now upgrade it. What it needs most is reference to two reviews -- there must have been some. Also consider the title -- should it be (Lavery ballet) or something of the sort. DGG (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Done (more to follow).
Apropos the title; most such ballet stubs I've named as "Qwerty (ballet)", but City Ballet has two Romeo and Juliets; Romeo + Juliet by Peter Martins and Romeo and Juliet by Lavery. This was the first such pair of like named dance entries I dealt with and should've thought to do what you suggested (I'll take no more of your time.)

football deletion[edit]

Just to tell you, Im recreating the article you deleted, List of National Football players with 10,000 Career Rushing Yards, its bullshit you deleted it, first of all you could of left me a message telling me you were going to delete, and secondly the 10,000 rushing yard mark is a big milestone, if List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits is an article this should definitely be an article.--Yankees10 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont want to jump to conclusion or anything but looking at your edit history, it looks like you dont know much about football and dont know that this is a article that deserves to be made, and it seems to me you just deleted because you thought it wasnt important enough to be an article, when it is--Yankees10 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

what I deleted, wasn't an article, it was a redirect cross reference, from: List of National Football Leauge players with 10,000 career rushing yards to" List of National Football League players with 10,000 career rushing yards.

I deleted it as an implausible typo. I think that's just what it was; I think i have enough judgment on bad spelling to say as much. From what you say, the article had been created under the typo and the right spelling, and the typo left behind as a redirect, which is what happens automatically if one doesnt mark it for deletion. the actual article was and remains at [[9]] Nobody seems ever to have marked it for deletion. I certainly wouldn't have. Assuming there no quarrel about where the milestone should be, it's the sort of list article that I usually support, if support is needed. Take another look before you go to the trouble of reconstituting it under a wrong spelling. DGG (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I owe you a huge apology, I looked at my articles creation section on my user page and saw the red link and pressed it and saw your name, I am very sorry--Yankees10 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC) No problem. DGG (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

About the article "Design management in organization"[edit]

So I'm trying to avoid controversial edits, moreover I'm a newbie here, that is why I need your advise. This article was written after my acquaintance with some articles that develop this subject. What should I do to improve the article and save it from deleting . Write some sources? Rewrite some parts of it? Thanks for your help in advance :) Prokopenya_Viktor (talk)

RFA thanks[edit]

One of my favorite places Dear DGG,

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. I am both heartened and humbled by the confidence the community has shown me.. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. If you see me having a "teachable moment," please do not hesitate to let me know. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence.

Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anus eel[edit]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that you had declined the speedy deletion. It was still on the page when I deleted the article. The article "Anus Eel" (with the capital E) was previously deleted, so I thought that it counted as a restoration of an already deleted article. I guess I made a mistake, so I apologize.--Danaman5 22:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC) No problem, replied on your p. DGG (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


I can take criticism with the best of them, but to be honest I feel you're taking quite a small representative sample. Over the course of the evening I've speedied 37 articles. Of those, 28 have been accepted and speedily deleted. Of the remainder, a fair percentage were speediable (sp?) when tagged but subsequently improved, de-copyviod, or otherwise.

For ease of reference (and because I've got little better to do at the moment, having been warned away from speedying until tomorrow) I've compiled a quick list - User:Gilesbennett/Sandbox/30November. I don't particularly like being accused of WP:Bite either - where the users have shown a willingness to improve the article I've been the first to help. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken on board your specific comments, however - although with your point on no context, at the time of flagging the article in question (Binding corporate rules, I believe) there wasn't sufficient context to identify the article. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Response on your talk page,yes it was more like 1/4 and I apologize for overstatement. DGG (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. All forgiven and taken on board (provided you don't turn down my latest speedy request - User:Gilesbennett/Sandbox/30November). Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. It'd already been deleted by the time I fixed the missing bracket. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs)