User talk:DGG/Archive 18 Jul. 2008

Copy of MRK (programming language), if possible, please.

User:Fram closed the AfD as Delete, so the article is gone, and Fram has left to go hide under a rock. (But he did nothing wrong.) Would you mind userfying a copy of it and its talk page in my user space? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

done, even though you seem to have forgotten how to spell it in the course of the discussion, now at User:Abd/MKR (programming language) and User talk:Abd/MKR (programming language) , and the sources were already userified to User talk:Rhmccullough/Sources DGG (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I wanted MRK. It's a reverse Polish version of the language. Seriously, thanks, and I didn't notice the bad spelling because, well, I'm 64 and it was naturally a redlink anyway. I'll leave it there for the amusement of future generations.--Abd (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Spell fix

Hope you don't mind. Seraphim♥Whipp 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

but, but you're depriving readers of learning all about "butt hat"s ;) _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

there are some things a spelling checker can't fix, so I rely on my friends .As for me personally, I gave up in the 2nd grade. DGG (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Taser controversy AfD

Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy#re:Globalise and Talk:Taser controversy#Renaming this article?. Flatscan (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

commented. DGG (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, DGG, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

email?

Hello, you asked for an e-mail from me a while back. I sent one and I haven't gotten a response. FYI... Hobit (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry--I'll look for it tonight.DGG (talk)

Ping again. Hobit (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Echidnas (Sonic the Hedgehog)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Echidnas (Sonic the Hedgehog), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echidnas (Sonic the Hedgehog). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ZeroGiga (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No speedies for Heinz Chapel Choir

Could you comment at User talk:John2120 and welcome him? I would so so, but I would prefer somebody else to do so (this is one of my students and I don't want to be seen as too biased). In any case, I do believe that newbies should be at least welcomed before being bitten with speedy or prod of other type of deletion / warning templates... perhaps this should be part of a policy? Welcome, than warn? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to give some advice tailored to the specific instance. Yes, the welcome should be always be given first--but a welcome followed immediately by a warning seems a little hollow also. The only way to deal with newcomers is personal attention. I can't do it myself for all those I see in difficulties, but others do the same, and I've learned my approach from them. Not enough others, though. And too many people patrolling new pages who dont understand the need. It's many of the more established editors who equally need the advice. DGG (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

I replied to your posts at Citation style. Bebestbe (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

much improved, but I keep thinking of new things.... DGG (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Going through a lot of people articles, and came across Pamela Hodgson. Seems to be a classic case of non-notability. I guess I should prod it, but I always like to get a second opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I am a bit of an inclusionist, it is hard to see why THAT article needs to be in an encyclopedia.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Filll. Would you (or DGG) also be able to opine on how useful this sort of update is? Some of the people can seem less than notable, and adding them to such lists seems pointless sometimes, but I suppose eventually they will be found. I suppose I might be the only person finding them though... Carcharoth (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If they have articles, we're stuck with them on this list until they get deleted. If e start picking and choosing, we'll never avoid arguments there--it should be automatic. One thing that would certainly help, and is customary for long lists of this sort, is to separate out the figures in different fields of activity, such as sports.

as for Pamela H., it was put in by an anon. back in 2005. It's a good argument why anons are not now allowed to create articles. If she had been head of the national board, she would have been notable. DGG (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a PROD tag. BTW, the Hodgson list is longer now. 60+ people. Apparently it is a one of those annoyingly common surnames... Carcharoth (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really use PROD much. I guess there is no point notifying an IP address whose only other contribution was David Graham (Canadian academic)? That looks a little bit more notable, but not much. Well, on second thoughts, he could be fairly notable. I'll leave you to deal with that one. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

SMIViewer page Deletion question

Thank you for your efforts to maintain a neat pedia for all.

With all due respect, may I request an explanation of the reason why you deleted the SMIViewer page from wikipedia? You said in the deletion log: 'G11: Blatant advertising: promotional for new product'.

I am willing to accept the blatant part. But it is not a product, it is a resource free for the community. Science.Medical.Imaging is not a commercial group, it is an open for all group of researchers and students trying to make a difference in healthcare by sharing free resources, working on their own time without compensation on the weekends to get something useful done for everyone's benefit.

Anyways, I respect your action, as long as you admit that it is not a product. I think that is a big mistake calling a free resource a commercial product.

Thank you for your time.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.185.228 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"product" is a very general term here, including computer programs; the alternative is "content", . And it doesn't matter if it's commercial or noncommercial, the practice here is to look on them just the same. Even free resources. There seems to be a frequently expressed idea that we exist to try to emphasise them, but we don't--except that for our own site, we use only open source. The concept behind all this is WP:NPOV -- a neutral point of view even for the stuff we like. As for the deletion, the key here is "promotional" I apologize for the word "blatant", but it's the built in wording--means somewhere between primarily promotional and exclusively promotional. I don't particularly like it either, and if you have a better suggestion for a general wording, let us know.

Anyway, as soon as you can find some published articles referring to its use, rewrite the article to emphasise them and try again. You can include a screen shot, if it's GFDL. Ask me if there are any problems. DGG (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Courtesy tags redux

Hello again, DGG ... Do you have any comments on this change?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk) _{18:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)}

goood first step. I proposed an extension.DGG (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Party References for Order of Vila Vicosa==

Dear DGG you may consider looking over the site and removing your remark as there are now several correct references. Please keep me posted. Carl Royalhistorian (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

commmented on talk page there.

Deletion of Resonance, Kota

Hello DGG,
The page was created to help students(IIT-JEE preparation).I am an alumni of the same Institute, hopefully if you have heard of IIT, i am sure you know how much competetion is there to get in IITs.This year 1064 students have been selected in different IIT's from this Institute, which is the 1/7th part of total selections in Joint Entrance Exam(JEE) all over India. So thing is that every student who wants to or willing for JEE- preparation in northern INDIA already knows about RESONANCE, Kota. Many parents has personally showed their personal interest in giving a page in Wikipedia.I want to know what was the content in this page, you think as i am doing it for commercialsation purpose.If that is so i will try to avoid that type of information not to add here.Please send me the deleted page for my convenience. this is my mail id- raghav.eceiitkgp@gmail.com waiting for your reply. Thanks in appreciation.

You have to be able to show that it is notable--that it has been written about by 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases). I'm emailing you the contents, but unless you have such references I doubt you will be able to write an acceptable article. Indian newspapers are OK, if they actually have substantial content on the school, not just mention that somebody went there. Please read our Business FAQ DGG (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sending you the link for the official website of Resonance(This new site is currently being developed).Some recent news about Resonance in some wellknown Newspapers is also being provided.

www.resonance.ac.in

• http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?skin=pastissues2&enter=LowLevel&AW=1215262178484 2nd June, 2008,Times of India Delhi
• The Week,Focus(supplementory), 4th May, 2008, Page no.-54,55(About Kota Institutes)
• The Week,Focus(supplementory), 4th May, 2008, Page no.-58(About Director)
• Rajasthan Patrika, Kota Edition, 27th June 2008, coloured Page in Mid.

The only article I can get to, the first, is about 2 students selected to join the scientific expedition in Russia to study the solar eclipse. The total information about the school is the single sentence "Students of Resonance PCCP division have done well in the various national and international level examinations." This is usable, but not near enough, because it is not substantial coverage. DGG (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Wolk article discussion

Thank you for your feedback on how to better establish the subject's notability. I have edited the entry, included links to three of his publications, and responded on the article's discussion page. If it would be helpful to provide a link to a book review on the Chronicle of Philanthropy, I could do that, too, but that review would be accessible only to Chronicle subscribers. Please advise if you think further editing is warranted.Jhutson64 (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

warnings you issued

When an editor attempted to redirect the duplicative copyvio page he wrote to a relatively non-copyvio page already present in Wikipedia, you issued him repeated warnings for removing content User talk:Jamesmcardle. Perhaps you may have been using an automated tool, without looking at the nature of the actual edit? Changing to a redirect is very often a legitimate edit, especially in cases like this--it was exactly the right thing for him to have done, and he deserves praise, not censure. I have already apologized to the editor on behalf of wikipedia--and rewritten and combined the additional usable information from the copyvio article into the preexisting article. DGG (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that DGG. This is indeed a rather grave miscalculation from my side. If i remember well the first edit i noticed consisted of a partial removal of some of the text, followed by a complete replacement with a red link article. I expected this was yet another user who tried to redirect a page to a nonexistent one, and covering the action up by making the name sound plausible. (I reverted a same sort of attempt a few times today, which caused a "Not another one" reaction").

Thanks for cleaning this one up! I removed the warnings from the page as they are not valid; Not trying to hide what happened, but i don't think it should be on the user record as if he was being a vandal (That, and if another huggle warns him it would be a level 4 warning). Kind regards as ever, Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the acknowledgment. Personally, I consider Huggle so likely to lead to problems that I don't trust myself to use it, nor do I use any other automated tools. DGG (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Efforts at deletion rather than improvement for groups of incomplete articles are worth investigating. These are, some of them, journals published in by--among others-- some advocates of various alternative forms of medicine; some supporters of articles on these subjects may be trying to insert the articles of the journals to establish the legitimacy of their sources, while some of the hyper-SPOV people may possibly be trying to eliminate Wikipedia coverage of such journals to discredit the articles taken from them. DGG (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Engineered negligible senescence

[Note: the previous user (Jhutson64) deleted this message. I am reposting it.] Hi DGG, a few days have passed any noone has opposed moving "Engineered negligible senescence" to "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence". When you have the time, could you take care of the move? Thanks a lot for help! --22:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Phenylalanine (talk)

Sorry about that. I did not intend to delete your message. My apologies.Jhutson64 (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Retractable Roof Open/Closed Status for NFL Stadiums

a list of days on which a stadium roof was open is indiscriminate information, and is totally unencyclopedic, let alone totally unsourced. ninety:one 16:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

you are fully a liberty to propose it for AfD. You may well be right--I am not sure I will defend the article there, but it merits a discussion. Perhaps the article can be reduced to a comparative discussion of the roofs without the list of games. An article that can possibly be rescued does not fall under speedy. DGG (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

thank you :) ninety:one 17:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that you did very well to call attention to the article, which is indeed not really satisfactory as it stands. DGG (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Thanks

Thank you for your vote at my RFA, which has now closed as a success. They say hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I wish I had the benefit of it a week ago. I might have waited more than a month or so after my coaching ended (made it about 3 months instead) before going to RFA, and it probably would have alleviated people's thoughts about my suitability.

Anyway, when I get a few minutes to spare (after going through admin school), I'll be seeing about making some recommendations about admin coaching. So this post is just to say thank you foryour participation, and to also let you know that I have taken your concerns seriously. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish you well. Experience can be gained--just go slow at first and start with the most obvious. DGG (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Article: Anandi Ma

This article was speedily deleted, and I wasn't online to stop it from happening. Could I have a copy of the text of the article? Thanks. User: Rabble Rouser (Sorry, I haven't gotten down how to sign my comment yet). —Preceding comment was added at 00:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll email it to you, but you must first either activate your email from your user preferences page, or send me an email from this page--see the link on the left-- that I can reply to. And you sign messages by typing 4 tilde marks, like this ~~~~ DGG (talk) 03:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Manozksarms (talk · contribs · count)

This user who contacted you regarding Resonance IIT JEE is repeatedly recreating deleted material with no change in content. He/She is also creating duplicate articles with slightly dfferent page names.Thanks, --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

found yet another one, deleted it, and issued a final warning. Thanks for letting me know. DGG (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

This may interest you. After many years of it sitting like that, I got up the nerve to make a major effort to push the page in the right direction and many editors are joining in. You have always provided valuable input in the past, have a keen copyedit eye, and I think the topic may interest you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you check and see if I have met (or gone in the right direction) 3, 4, 5 (I removed job completely and reworded for accuracy), 6, and 8? I am preparing material for Boswell's Life page along with a page to discuss his many early biographies and his personality (there is a lot of material on these, but not much room to place them all). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC) b style="color:#696969">lds]] 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Country

What sort of page were you suggesting these be merged to? I'll create it, (as I can't find one already existing), but I'm unsure what you propose be on such a page. Thanks. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of: "one-act plays by T. W." or "Minor drama of T.W." -- I see the corresponding section 2.2 in the main article, but he's too important an author to be treated in that summary a fashion--I'd suggest that each individual one should be listed, and expanded with an indication of whether and where it was first performed, and the critical reception. And similarly for the short stories. Unfortunately, I don't particularly want to do this myself, as I find the 18th century a lot more interesting, but if you set up the skeleton someone will come along to fill it in. DGG (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Perversion of religion

Hi there. As you originally prodded this article, you might be interested in the AfD I've started for it. Best, Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Articles of Failed Candidates

Hey DGG - if I cannot delete those failed candidates then why is it that people can delete David Southwick? This is very unfair - I put a lot of man hours into thsat articles and to be told by you that article should not have been deleted really breaks my souls and my confidence in Wikipedia. CatonB (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that I ever commented on the David Southwick article. The consensus here is that failed candidates are not notable unless on other grounds--I myself disagree with respect to national office, for the nominated candidates of the two major US political parties, and in other 2 party systems==I think them notable. But I do not know enough about other political systems to judge. In particular, I am not sure of the status of the Greens in Australia. I hope the consensus will change towards my position, but I cannot say it has done so yet. Wikipedia is not a monolith--everyone here has their own opinions. When I comment at afd I have no more wight than any other editor. We do not go by precedent here in any exact way--perhaps we should, but we do not. If you look for that sort of consistency here you will indeed be disappointed--but I do not see how that is my fault. Which particular article was it you thought I judged unfairly? DGG (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

CSD A1

How well does it work in practice? I noticed woodburning stove (should be a redirect to wood burning stove) and Quinton Catheter deleted for this reason recently. Is that a misunderstanding of the criteria? There was enough context there for me to understand what the article was about. I posted at WT:CSD, but wanted to ask you personally as well, as I know you are involved in deletion discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It works when used as intended, but it is often misused to apply to anything where the content is on some reason thought inappropriate. I've seen it used for much more extensive articles than the ones you cite. (For the catheter, it was nominated as A1, no context, and then deleted as A3, no substantial content, --equally wrong. But it would have really helped to have some sort of reference, because the context was unfamiliar., For the stove, the reason was ridiculous, both the nom and the actual deletion.) It is very hard to find unambiguous wordings. It is even harder to get people to follow them. DGG (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that woodburning stove got stubbed in November 2007 due to advertising concerns. What was there wasn't great, but what was left afterwards was just a dict-def. The history merge has now confused things even more. The switch seems to be here. That looks like GazBrom (to be fair, it seems like and might be a fairly spammy username - almost as bad as "Stoveman") blanked the page and added the new content, when in fact what happened was he created a new article at "wood burning stove". What Satori Son did was do a history merge between "woodburning stove" (no space) and "wood burning stove" (with a space). Probably not technically right, but in the end it gets everything in the right place and leaves a redirect behind. Anyway, compare Stoveman's version with GazBrom's verwsion, and then with GazBrom's later version, and then with Biscuittin's version. And then compare with the other articles in Category:Heaters and Category:Fireplaces. Interseting, but daunting to try and wrestle something like that into shape, or even to think how long it took to get to the state it is in now! Anyway, that's enough of that. Thanks for the thoughts. Carcharoth (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

PS. I forgot to mention, I should do something about "Quinton catheter", but I'm wondering how good a "catheter article" has to be to make it past the various hurdles on Wikipedia for new articles. I might just dump some stuff in catheter. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

for this specific one, PubMed lists 84 references. Most just seem to say they used it--which is in itself an indication of notability, but some seem to discuss the relative merits. DGG (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

chloe whittal

A typo: if you see Ilka Gedő? Ironho[[User talk:Ironholds|<

W-PuTTY-CD

Another editor deleted W-PuTTY-CD as "blatant advertising". I think it may have been tagged for speedy deletion by the same editor who tagged Simon Tatham, the author of PuTTY. Could you please look at the deleted article and restore it if you think the article is acceptable? --Eastmain (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, tagged by same user, Deleted by Cobaltbluetony, so you ought to ask him first. The article has some obvious problems, and seeing it as advertising was not absurd. If you send me an email address, I'll email it so you can rewrite it & resubmit as an alternative. DGG (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Brad Hicks

Was there any particular reason that this article would not qualify for CSD A7? It is an article about a non-notable local news anchor, as you stated in the prod tag, that fails to show any signs of notability... Per CSD A7, it gives no reasonable indication that the subject is notable. Wouldn't that qualify? Not that I'm arguing about CSD vs. Prod vs. AfD, I'm just confused as to why your replaced the CSD with a prod... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the amount of notability to pass AfD and qualify for a Wikipedia article, and what is required to pass speedy. For a Wikipedia article, WP:N applies, as well as the other usual requirements for an article. To pass speedy, there need only be some indication or assertion of importance of significance. Saying someone is a radio or TV announcer on a broadcast station is something that a person might reasonably feel might possibly be notable, and therefore passes speedy. See WP:CSD A7, and the extremely extensive discussions on its talk page. As always, I do what others do & interpret it the way most admins seem to be interpreting it--if it is for a local station, these articles are generally deleted via PROD, and, in fact, there is a systematic campaign to identify all articles like this and get rid of them via that procedure. If someone wrote an article, and said "He hopes to be a radio announcer when he finishes school," then that would be a valid A7, for nobody could really think that might be in any way notable--and we get quite a number of such articles a day, and they get speedy deleted. DGG (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, just wondering, I haven't kept on on all the discussions regarding CSD lately... I'll have to go read up on that. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Harajuku Girls (Gwen Stefani song)

Hi. You removed the CSD G12 from Harajuku Girls (Gwen Stefani song) saying there was no copyvio in the current article. The article contains:

"Harajuku Girls" sees Stefani paying tribute to the four Japanese women who seem to be accompanying her everywhere in the promotion for this album

It is an interesting, if not altogether successful experiment. The Oriental, almost electropop, style of the music works well but is let down by some poor lyrics ("My boyfriend bought me a Hysteric Glamour shirt, they're hard to find in the States, got me feeling couture") and a truly cringeworthy moment where one of the Harajuku Girls comes out with "Gwen Stefani? You like me"

The 6th pararaph of the website it was copied from[1]:

"Harajuku Girls sees Stefani paying tribute to the four Japanese women who seem to be accompanying her everywhere in the promotion for this album and is an interesting, if not altogether successful experiment. The Oriental, almost electro-pop, style of the music works well but is let down by some poor lyrics ("My boyfriend bought me a Hysteric Glamour shirt, they're hard to find in the States, got me feeling couture") and a truly cringeworthy moment where one of the said Harajuku Girls comes out with "Gwen Stefani? You like me?"."

How is that not a direct copy (with a header stuck in the middle)? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

my error--normally this means the lyrics are copied. I didnt read carefully enough to find the excerpt. I have just now deleted it as copyvio. Sorry. DGG (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob and thanks :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

EchoNYC

Hi: You speedy deleted the EchoNYC article and I think it just needs more work. There are a lot of sources about it, just Google News "Stacy Horn", the founder. I would like to see what the initial edits looked like, so could you resurrect it? I will work on it a little. The web site has popped up as mentions here and there so mind as well find out what the fuss is all about.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've undeleted it and tagged it for proposed deletion in 5 days unless it gets substantially improved and sourced. Good luck with it. I'll keep track. DGG (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't know much about it myself but it keeps coming up so it might be worthwhile to have an article explaining it.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Jean Daoud

I see you removed my speedy tag on this. I'm sorry i wasn't able to tell notability since i don't speak French ;-). But seriously, this is nothing but the reposting of his resume. Was that worth saving? --Mblumber (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it needs work. I will try to get to it myself. The way I look at it, if there's enough information that it can be rescued, it should be DGG (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Guardian Life Insurance Company of America

DGG: Guardian page has been altered again and questionable content has reemerged. Request that the entry is restored. Please advise as to how we can prevent alterations like this again in the future.

Guardian Per denied deletion of Guardian Life Insurance article. Per Wikipedia standards, companies cannot edit their own pages/articles. Please advise. The entry can be constituted as vadalism per site standards. 15:38, 15 July 2008 (comment added by i.p. User:63.72.235.4 ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.72.235.4 (talk)

They are not supposed to, but they are not prohibited from doing so, if they do it objectively. In fact, I'd guess that about 1/2 of the entries for businesses and other organisations are done by people connected with them. We ask them not to, because it's hard to do it properly, with respect both to what they say, and how they say it. But it can be done, and if it isn't done right, we can help them edit it. This is discussed in considerable detail by Durova's excellent page of advice on the subject, our Business FAQ. I shall keep an eye on the article. It needs keeping an eye on, for it has a curious history. It was originally entered as a stub back in 2006, and expanded in what seems to be an unobjectionable fashion by an ip account that is reported by whois to be connected with the company. Additional material that would appear to be controversial, inappropriate, and inadequately sourced [26] was added soon after by an account, User:Policyholder, accompanied by the removal of reasonable descriptive and historical material about the company. The account was soon blocked indefinitely for adding such material to this and articles on other insurance companies. Additional inappropriate material was later added -- surprisingly, from an ip address also reported to be connected with the company. Quality was restored by a very reliable Wikipedia administrator [27]. Unfortunately, it was later compromised again. Now, you, using an account reported by whois to also be associated with the company, have requested removal of the article. What I have done instead is restored the most recent good version of the article. If it is vandalized again, I will protect it. As I have said, you are welcome to add material to the article, but perhaps you would do well to register and declare any conflict of interest. DGG (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks DGG. We'll monitor the article also and take your advice re: editing 16:03, 16 July 2008

The user who added it has been blocked for 4 months and the changes reverted. If it is vandalized by another, the article will be protected, but we prefer to block the editor involved. I again urge you to find a good published source or two on the company. DGG (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Willamette Falls Community Hospital Heliport

Hi. I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify what you think needs a policy discussion? I deleted this specific article after a PROD had expired. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Typically I do. I don't believe I did in this case, however. Though, it would sure be nice if people read the complete deletion log reason, as then they'd realize how to have it restored. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No original research/noticeboard

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

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

Your user page offers yet another salutary observation which, for me, seems very much on-point: I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience. --Tenmei (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No original research/noticeboard

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

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

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

OptOut

Your both #1 and #21 at Wikipedia:OPTOUT/Long Term Straw Poll, don't know if that was intentional, but I support your emphasis on disagreeing with that proposal. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Two articles: List of Nursing Homes, Group Medical Practice

Hi, I just now realized that List_of_Nursing_Homes had already been created once, then deleted 22 June at AfD here. In my opinion both List_of_Nursing_Homes and Group Medical Practice, by the same editor and referencing the same commercial database provider, should be deleted because:

Content not useful or encyclopedic. No assertion of notability. Purpose seems to be to house commercial link to a database provider that can in turn be spammed across other medical-related articles via internal links.

I'm sensitive to spam, especially in geriatric-oriented articles. I would really appreciate your taking a second look at these. I'm not an admin so I don't know what needs to happen next. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

They primarily provide information about the subjects covered. Whatever the reason for their introduction, they provide information and are thus not spam. Another administrator declined to delete them on that ground via speedy, and I also did via prod. However, List of Nursing homes has now been deleted as a copyright violation--I tend to personally think such lists not copyvio, but some others disagree. The appropriate course of action now would be for you to nominate the other article for AfD. DGG (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For information --Allemandtando (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't really se why you took it there, instead of copyright problems, or AfD. DGG (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROF revision draft - revisited

I am trying to restart the process of revising WP:PROF and have posted further comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#WP:PROF revision draft - revisited. Please take another look there and see if you have further comments. Of course, you are welcome to edit the draft itself too:User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. Thanks a lot, Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Elaine Riddick Jessie

Hi, I noticed that you axed the prod and notability tags from this article. However, I still fail to see how this article asserts notability. My understanding of WP:BIO is that a person is not considered notable for being connected to a notable event, especially if their role in said event is no different from thousands of others. I admit, she has garnered some media attention in the wake of the public apology for the Eugenics Board's action, but that has been, from what I have seen, exclusively in the context of articles about the state's apology, and not articles about her and/or anything that she has done to bring about this action. In fact, I suspect that the only reason she is mentioned in these articles is because she is one of the few surviving victims, which I don't think is any reason for us to consider her notable. I would support a merge with the Eugenics Board of North Carolina article, but I think this article should be deleted. Steve Carlson^Talk 18:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The articles, published in the context of the apology, deal with her earlier experiences also. The fact that one of them was published 4 years after the revocation is a clear indication of continuing interest, which is usually accepted as satisfying NOT NEWS. But you are of course welcome to try AfD--who knows what will happen there. Personally, I think it would be more useful to look for material to provide fuller coverage of the whole set of events. DGG (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there was an article about this 4 years after the fact proves that there is still interest in the Eugenics Board (WP:NOTNEWS), yes, but does it mean there is interest in her? I did actually spend some time on Google trying to find other sources. However, most of the content about her seems to be lifted straight from wikipedia (really annoying, is that legal?), and the independent sources I did find were the same as the others - they primarily discuss the Eugenics Board and the apology, and have a very brief inline discussion of her experiences. It seems like she is the "poster child" for these stories, the face they attach to the story to make it more human, but none of these articles are actually about her in any significant way. Does that make her notable? Steve Carlson^Talk 02:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification of what I agree to be is the basic question, not just here, but on many articles of similar nature, which is how to deal with the representative individuals used in newspaper feature writing--the Poster Children. My answer to that, is that we follow the media. If they use the particular individuals in this way, I consider that it does make them notable. Probably we need a general discussion. DGG (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take it to the WP:BIO talk page, although I think that WP:ONEEVENT may address this. Please chime in with your perspective! Steve Carlson^Talk 05:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

In regards to your message - I couldn't agree more. Hopefully the others agree and we can move forward action on that basis. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

As someone who tends to be an inclusionist, you may be interested to know about Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

signed up a year ago, actually. DGG (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about when it is appropriate to warn editors

Dear DGG, for an edit summary like this, would it be appropriate to warn that user for civility or something or not? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

it would be more useful to encourage him to discuss the issue. Are there any real sources yet? I would tend to just ignore it as hyperbole, unless it becomes a habit. DGG (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not long after the above, he also made this edit summary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Resonance

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

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

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

Expert help on National Academic Championship

I can give you any information you want. I wrote most of the Quizbowl Wiki article on the NAC, which can be found here: http://www.doc-ent.com/qbwiki/index.php?title=National_Academic_Championship . Immodestly speaking, I think that if there is any such thing as an "expert" on high school quizbowl, I qualify. The issue is that an accurate portrayal of the NAC from any reliable source will seem very negative. Wikipedia NPOV policy is ill-equipped to handle subjects that really are perceived as malevolent forces within their contexts; it seems that editors are encouraged to whitewash on such topics. SombreroGalaxyHat (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have replied on your user talk page.DGG (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

re:National Academic Championship

I wanted to let you know that I have nominated this article for deletion. I fully agree that editing would be preferable, and that expert help would be a great idea. You should know that two of the three people involved on the talk page recently are nationally recognized experts in national quizbowl, and that I would likely also be considered something of a national expert. I have followed this article here and there for some time. You will likely find with a deep search some articles covering a champion, but there will be nothing reliable to directly cover the subject. There is a bias issue which is also an issue that comes from taking too much information from the company website which is a little over the top biased if you read through the page. I normally couldn't agree more with you, but this is one of those rare article where I have an inside knowledge of this. Perhaps some sources will be found. But I have gone looking, and I have found nothing. Have a great day, and good editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

commented there--this is a little tricky. DGG (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek article (again)

Hi, please note that srbosjek article is being considered for deletion again. Some of the sources from the last year have been removed, but since you were familiar with last time discussion, I thought you would like to take a look. Terse (talk) 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

start a discussion?

I proposed deleting Willamette Falls Community Hospital Heliport and I saw that you engaged in the discussion of that same action at User_talk:Rjd0060 in these edits. Specifically, you write, "it does seem that we need a general policy discussion on this." How would I start one? Pdbailey (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably the relevant Wikproject. I wasn't sure then, but it seems to be WP:AVIATION. DGG (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I found suitable home. Pdbailey (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Debian Project leaders

FWIW, six DPL-biographies were tagged AfD in the space of about seven minutes[2]; you make wish to review/check the of them! —Sladen (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

seems to have been already taken care of, and ed. blocked as disruptive. DGG (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Verne F. Ray

Hi David, if you're bored I have an article you might be able to help with. I found Verne F. Ray in the backlog and notability seems pretty clear. I worked on it some to expand and source it, but I think it needs more. Some of his publications are listed, and there are more, but I don't know how to judge which are significant enough, if that makes sense. Anyway, no rush but I thought you might have some insight. Thanks so much! TravellingCari 15:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Working from WorldCat, I filled in a little, but will get back to it. It is undetermined whether in a case such as this to list only the formal books, or all the works. Some of his works are non-technical, and I usually try to list them separately. DGG (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I fleshed out a bit when I found it just to give it some context. I really wish people would but a smidge more effort when they create stubs, especially in cases like this. His notability is clear and it wasn't too hard to find info. TravellingCari 20:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy req for Possessive Apostrophe redir

Hi,
The reason Possessive Apostrophe isn't needed is that the Possessive apostrophe redir exists as well. There are no articles that link to the former, and anyone typing "Possessive Apostrophe" into the search box will be automatically turned over to the latter by the software. So -- it's an unnecessary redir. Admittedly, it won't destroy the project if it isn't deleted, though.

(This is one of these bits of cruft removal that I figure aren't worth taking through an RfD, but it's at least worth asking for twice. About 95% of these that I ask about get speedied, and of the remaining 5%, about 90% of those are speedied on appeal...:-)

Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

good reason. I'll delete. Agreed RfD is overkill. Personally, i sometimes wonder if there's any point at all in deleting redirects unless they are actually confusing or wrong or deceptive. DGG (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that my primary reason--"because the useless ones kind of bug me"--may not be unassailable. :-) But thanks for indulging me. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprod on Koreatown, Vancouver

You're not from Vancouver are you? You can't be. There's NO WAY the described area is known as Koreatown, nor is it a Korean neighbourhood more than any other kind of ethnic neighbourhood; it's incredibly mixed, incredibly dense. There is no official designation of Koreatown, no informal tourism designation, no marketing designation. IT DOES NOT EXIST. It is fictional, wished-for, make-believe, tell-a-lie-often-enough-to-make-it-true metareality. It should have been deleted; now I guess the avenue is an AFD as this article should not exist as it is about somewhere THAT DOES NOT EXIST (except in the wet dreams of its promomters).Skookum1 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You may very well be right, so take it to AfD. I think it needs a discussion. DGG (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion has been taking place on two venues- the article's own talk and Wikiproject Vancouver. Why do you think it should go to AfD when mechanisms for discussion have already been in place? I've undone your unprod. Dionix (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is one case where your intervention was completely unnecessary, especially since another admin was involved. While your intentions may have been good, in future you should consider the due weight of local editors' comments. The action taken was entirely appropriate for the circumstances. Dionix (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

In the debate on whether to restore an article that I speedied, you commented: "Admins who invent their own reason for Speedy, are deliberately acting against policy." I trust that's not an accusation directed at me? In my opinion, a group does not cease to be a group just because it's also a list. You may disagree, but that's not a reason to suggest misconduct on my part. Deb (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept that that point is worth discussion, but the other reasons you gave in the discussion do not seem to have been plausible reasons for speedy (or even deletion), and it was of those I was thinking.17:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC) My apologies if I worded it too strongly. DGG (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't intend the other comments as reasons, they were just further points about the article's unsuitability. (Maybe I was having a bit of a rant.) Deb (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Vaughn

Hello DGG, just wanted to know what, if any, additional information you need to make the biography article on Mary Susan Vaughn meet your criteria. Thank you very much. M. Susan Vaughn 21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msusanvaughn (talk • contribs)

replied on your talk page. DGG (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Legoland California

D'you reckon you could be a bit more careful with your CSD deletions? You deleted this per G11 (which is debatable that it fell under, as a quick run through with the backspace key would have fixed it), and yet a very quick look at the history shows this recent edit, which introduced the tonne of spam. Legoland California, being a huge, highly popular and very well known theme park, is inherantly notable, and therefore needs a page. It should never have been deleted without a careful look through the history (as of course is true of any article). I've restored the article and reverted to the last good version. Please take some more time over CSD noms. _TalkIslander 15:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

you are right, though I would have appreciated it had you asked me to undelete it first. And it still seems to need some rewordings of "you can " do this or that. Curious how many complaints go just the other way. Guess it shows that everyone makes very possible mistake once in a while. DGG (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree that everyone makes mistakes, but then pointing out said mistakes helps to avoid them being made again :). Yes, it does still need some rewriting, and I'll probably do that at some point, but it's definitely no longer a CSD candidate. _TalkIslander 16:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Input at List of Paraphilias?

Hi, DGG.

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

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

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

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

RE: Speedy: & Huggle

I do konw the speedy criteria and whilst you may have a point regarding THe Billy Goat caller, if you were to look at the state of the page Creations of satyajit ray [Creations of satyajit ray when I tagged it] you will see that 1) At that time it was a very short artilce lacking any context, and 2) I did not tag it as an empty article which would have been under CSD A3 not A1 with there being no context.

Additionally if you check the deletion log, for the The Billy Goat Caller you will see that it was deleted by another admin twice after I had tagged it previously and had then been recreated by the same user at which point I retagged it with the same tag I had added twice before.

The only other thing I can say to suggest I know what the criteria are is that if you look at the deleted histories of the following pages, I tagged them only this morning (UTC) and they were deleted by 11 different sysops.

Barbara Jane Cowie

NoGyan

IMS Learning Resources

Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Subang Jaya (SMKSJ)

The Dhaka Mercantile Co-operative Bank ltd

Paris gafeney

Roy clark III

Dvds4u.net.au

Roy clark III

Cathie lesjak

NoGyan

Nichole stevens

Nicole alessi

The Dhaka Mercantile Co-operative Bank ltd

BigHairRef | Talk 18:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to confirm that you are at least moderately accurate. When they're obvious, you get them. Now aim for even better. I continue to think that nobody ought to use huggle for speedies. I delete several hundred articles a month without any automated tools at all. DGG (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst you are entitled to your opinion which I can fully inderstand, I think you have been somewhat unfair here. You have accused me of not knowing what the CSD criteria are, I have demonstrated that on at least these occasions I have and that other people agree with me.

In addition you have shown that on one occasion that you confused an A1 with an A3 and one of the articles you accused me of tagging improperly was deleted by two other admins at another time and the other one clearly fitted the criteria when I tagged it. The fact that it now dsoen't fulfill those criteria is fine. If it dosen't deserve to be deleted now it dosen't deserve to be deleted but at least give me some credit for the fact that I've not been tagging willy-nilly and happened to get it right on some occasions; I have in fact most of the time got it right, and I think I deserve something a little highet that moderately accurate after telling me to stop on my talk page?

I do not suggest that I am perfect as you will have seen at the top of my talk page but I would appreciate you striking the comment on my talk page that I do not know what the CSD are when I think I have demonstrated that I have. BigHairRef | Talk 19:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only admin who has refused your Speedies.But i will modify the comment. My apologies if it sounded to snarky. DGG (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope I am not now giving additional uneccesary informaion, which would be counterproductive, (and incidentally thank you for modifying your comment) but I thought for the record it would be worth mentioning that the fact that I use Huggle only changes the nunber of artilces that I tag, it makes no difference in terms of my judgement and I would tag exactly the same articles that I found manually as I would with the programme.

What I would say in terms of you not being the only admin is that I am aware of that, but if you look at the number of artilces I tag overall you would see that the vast majority of the articles I tag are deleted (without in depth analyses of my contribs), in excess of 95% overall of my taggings. Of the messages left on my talk page I accept that 1 of them was a genuine mistake (the mistaken attack page, most of the discussion is on the other user's page) but at least two or three of them were people who had created a page such as a redirect which was only a pop culture reference which they had likely wanted to include after watching the Simpsons (Chazzwazzer being the one that springs to mind) and then getting their knickers in a twist because it was quite frankly a massively implausible redirect and they got called on it.

I'm not suggesting everything I've done is perfect, but then no one's edit history is so, neither you or I could claim that I'm sure. All I would say is that the vast majority of my edits are useful at least and I'm making a positive contribution by tagging (mostly) unwanted 'articles', and fighting vandals and that the process is expedited and made considerably more efficient by the tool.

What I would suggest finally is that I will not be the only person who has had three or four speedy tags refused by admins, but in the vast scheme of things it's 3 or 4 compared to about 100 or so taggings, that's not a bad return rate is it? And if it's not up to spec all I would mention is that I am not a sysop and it's unlikely I will be one any time soon so even if I do get it wrong more often than I think, there's not great harm as if I'm wrong an admin will refuse the tag? I'm not trying to do the whole prove you wrong game here, but I thought that you may have gto something of a distorted opinion given the talk page messages. Ass you will be aware you never get messages thanking you for correct moves, only ones that want to call you out for a mistake even if it isn't necessarily one. BigHairRef | Talk 19:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would never discourage anyone from complaining about me--In fact you are the second person today who thought I was too sharp, so I take that as a signal I should double-check what I say. Sometimes people do say nice things, actually. sometimes I even do.

as for automated tools, you are correct that they let you go faster, not necessarily more carelessly, but I find that exactly the problem. Doing too many of one thing in a row tends to build up some bias. I know that when I patrol new pages, after a while I have seen so much junk that I tend to overreact to it--and then I need to work at something else. Or when I check speedies, my orientation is trying to restrain the over-speeders and look for articles to rescue, and I sometimes do rescue too much. Or when I'm trying to remove spam, I can get oversensitive to that also and remove decent links as well. From what I see, this happens to essentially everyone who does primarily one kind of work. So what I do is I have a routine of things I do in succession.

as for a goal, I've seen people raise objections at RfA when someone's rate of declined AfDs or speedies was even 5 or 10%. Personally, I think that may be overcritical--5% is as good as I think one person can get. And that's why I let someone else check my tagging, as do almost all admins. With 2000 new articles submitted a day, and half being deleted, rejecting 50 potential good contributors a day is too many, but with a double check it comes to 2 or 3, which is pretty good for a large operation like this. I notice you say on your talk page that people shouldn't worry about mistagging, because an admin will remove the tag if unwarranted, and I think that's not really a good thing to say- - the mistagging, even if removed, builds up ill-will. DGG (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the template message on my page, having read it again it didn't send accross the message that I wanted it to, I have tried to moderate the language now hopefully it'll fit a little better.

This is going to sound liike a stupid question so sorry in advance, but why did you write this "I would never discourage anyone from complaining about me"? I was trying to work out what it was a response to? I'm trying to write this las bit honestly and it might sound like I'm being sarcastic but I promise you I'm not, it's just a limitation of the medium. BigHairRef | Talk 04:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No,. the meaning is simply, please feel free to complain now and in the future, and be sure that i will not hold something like that against you. I think though perhaps we have each said a little more than necessary on this. About one in ten of the people whose speedies I decline complain--about the same portion of those whose articles I delete. And some of the time each of them are right. I'd rather be corrected than be wrong and have it passed over.DGG (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

illage the Game|this article]] not purely promotional? The official partners section is chalk full of mission statements and what sound like snippets from press releases, and the lead includes sentences like VillagetheGame.com LLC recons there are millions of people who crave to have a deep meaningful impact on the lives of the billions who live without life’s basic necessities. Village the Game is being created to bring these two groups of people together.. About the only thing in that article which isn't purely promotional is the title "Village the game".--221.143.25.19 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

seemed to have a descriptive core to me. Try editing out the spam.DGG (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Istaara's articles

Hi David, I only tagged one article for speedy and realy think that one was nonsense. It's title was about one author, but the article talked mostly about someone else who had written about this author (and even gave a photo of the reviewer). I guess one can debate about "nonsense", but I don't see how this article could be salvaged. I don't intend to do something about the other articles, I'll leave that to someone who knows this stuff better than I do. Wim --Crusio (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

someone else seems to have deleted it and I agree its not worth bothering further. DGG (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

He noticed that you declined speedy and restored it, so I have now prodded it. Istaara just got blocked for 48 hours. --Crusio (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting stranger. Look at where User:Istaara redirects to, and when that redirect was placed. DGG (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Together with this, it would seem to suggest that Istaara is Shahid himself. --Crusio (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Have a look at the Wikilinks to the works listed at User:Istaara. His photograph is on all of them, even if the authors are different people.... Starts to look like a walled garden of self-promotion to me... --Crusio (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)::::::::So I see. None of his fiction & poetry is in worldcat, but that doesnt mean much for an Urdu writer. Just conceivably he's actually notable, but at this point I'd suggest an AfD on him and his own works, after which the inevitable re-creations could be G4'd. DGG (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up his bio somewhat, but there is not much on sources. Google doesn't give much, most are sources that he himself evidently put up (Youtube and such). Let's wait until his block expires and see whether he can come up with some reliable sources. If not, AfD should indeed be the way to go for all this stuff. --Crusio (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC) For th individual books, they should almost certainly simply be merged; propose the merges, I'll support it. Much more satisfactory than deletion.& avoids a public fight which id somethin I am not looking forward to here with this particular editor. DGG (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well for argument sake I think there is some notability. Check this. I searched for Hameed Shahid on one of the leading Pakistani newspaper and I think it is a very useful resource for checking whether an article is notable or not. He has 24 results to him which means he has been in some sort of big news at least 24 times otherwise it won't be on dawn.com. So basically I think the article has some notability. SholeemGriffin (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, has the person who has created all these articles said anything yet? SholeemGriffin (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

well, he's blocked until the 22nd by Fisher Queen, but though he could still edit his talk page he hasn't done so since the 20th. I agree the articles in Dawn show notability. Would you care to rewrite the article? Much better you than the subject :) DGG (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look at it. I am not sure that articles on the individual books from the particular writer are notable so do they go for AfD? SholeemGriffin (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What is happening with these articles? I am not sure where to get information from in order to edit these articles. SholeemGriffin (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bournemouth university boat club

Hello! You had removed a Speedy Delete tag that I put on the article for Bournemouth university boat club. I can't say that I am in agreement with that decision, but I did follow your advice and I put the article up for AfD consideration. I wanted to call that to your attention -- if you feel the article is worthy of inclusion, I wanted to alert you to the opportunity to speak up for its merits. Hope all is well. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks, not sure myself, but I want to hear what people say. DGG (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nomination seems incomplete--article not yet tagged.

Dammit, someone removed the AfD tag. An IP vandal, too. I will put it back. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I put the article back in the queue. I appreciate your weighing in on the discussion -- I will be curious to see how this one turns out. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

More comments on WP:PROF?

Hello, DGG. Did you have more comments regarding the proposed revision of WP:PROF? Your last message at the talk page there was sort of finished in mid-sentence, with "(more coming)" at the end. I was waiting to see if you wanted to say more before replying. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'm at your mercy. :) DGG (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Saves

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

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

West Parish Elementary School Science Park

Hi DGG, I'd appreciate it if you could look at the article again now that it has been improved. And if you still think the article isn't worth having here, that you explain what policy or guideline you are using (NOT#NEWS?). I think the letter of WP:N is met here. Hobit (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

as you can see, I looked again & I think it passes. DGG (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hematide

Thank you very much for re-writing the article. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, thanks. I seeded it because I came across the substance when reading a Tour de France article somewhere else (in dutch). It seemed relevant as it is a new compound and at least one rider was tested positive for it. Beck (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC

Not promotional?

How is [[V

Re: that article

Alright, will keep that in mind down the line. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ethnicity and Democratic Governance

Thanks for your message, and especially for your offer to help. I'm waiting to hear back from the project's manager on whether she is aware of any press coverage on the project itself rather than its activities but, as I said, this kind of project rarely gets that.

By the way, one of the reasons that I chose to list the symposium in the International Journal of Constitutional Law is that Choudhry's introduction provides the following information in the first footnote:

The papers appearing herein were originally presented at a workshop in Toronto in October 2006 under the auspices of the Ethnicity and Democratic Governance Major Collaborative Research Initiative (MCRI), a five-year interdisciplinary project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. A selection of the conference papers appears in this volume; all will appear in an edited volume, CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN FOR DIVIDED SOCIETIES: INTEGRATION OR ACCOMMODATION? (Sujit Choudhry ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2008).

Given that this journal and Oxford University Press have both chosen to devote substantial resources to publishing the project's work as such, I thought this might be sufficient evidence of notability. Could you explain why it isn't? Thanks for your help. – SJL 03:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to be the case for any published work. Journals often publish symposia. My own professional view as a librarian is that they tend to often do that when they have insufficient other content worth including, and those papers usually get more cursory peer review. And a symposium published in a journal and a book are in my experience one of the things we carefully avoid purchasing--and usually comment unfavorably to each other in professional lists about. There's little enough money to buy scholarly work once.) Please excuse that last comment which is not strictly related to notability of the research group, but dual publication is somethign I;'ve been fighting against all my career). More helpfully, I'll take another look at my comment at the AfD tomorrow. DGG (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a description of the newspaper story and some quotes to the article's talk page as requested. – SJL 21:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

and I've gone back and changed my position a little on the basis of what you said there and here. We will ned a general disscussion of how to handle these cases, for they are increasingly entered here, and some are really important and some much less do. You will undertand our reluctance to give an article to a group that intends to become important. Long established and well known groups make much easer cases, DGG (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the reasons that it's up on the block (though I get the sense that the nominator is motivated by more than a concern about notability). To clarify, though, notability is not about importance, is it? I mean, there are a lot of truly unimportant things on Wikipedia. – SJL 18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In practice, Notability means suitability for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a list of all important things in the universe. What actually should be in it is a matter of continual discussion, as you can see below on this talk page and elsewhere. As for motivation, I see no reason to not assume good faith. DGG (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"This would need RFD"

What do you mean by this edit summary? --NE2 03:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Was a redirect, and it was not clear to me why the link should not be made, so I thought it would do better to have a proper discussion at RfD. No opinion on what the result sare likely to be there . DGG (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The designation was reused, kind of like Norfolk Southern Railway and Norfolk Southern Railway (former). --NE2 03:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it sounds to me like a case where a disam would be appropriate. But I merely removed the prod. RfD is the place for the discussion. DGG (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert G. Pielke

Could you please look at Robert G. Pielke? I removed a speedy tag since the author is notable, but I'm worried that some other editor might delete the article for resembling an advertisement. --Eastmain (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

already happened, but I removed it. I suggest it might help to edit out somr of the pr stuff rather fast. DGG (talk) 08:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

hi

I wrote to Hobit ( User talk:Hobit ) about the Murder of Joseph Didier DRV. You can snoop and read what I wrote if you want but you don't have to. Presumptive (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Franz Koenigs

I agree that references to personal knowledge in general cannot be used. However, if an unimportant person plays a role in an international conflict in which at least four countries are involved, than remarks of relatives may be of interest, because nobody will investigate te matters of an unimportant person. Therefore, I mentioned it but at the same time making clear that the opininion comes from relatives. It is especially of importance, because beside the claims of three countries also the family makes a claim (already rejected bu a Dutch judge). My citation is not to a personal site, but to a site of a conference. Robvhoorn (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am frankly not sure of the usability of t he account at the conference as a Reliable source. It was not subject to editorial control, and I want to think about it, and will then ask for a general opinion at WP:RSN, the reliable source noticeboard. I continue to urge you to add more truly RS published material to strengthen the article. DGG (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank for your remark. During private research about a combined subjet of secret services, resistance and war crimes during the Second World War (I publish no letter of it in Wikipedie until it is published) I discovered a decision bu Dutch judge in the case of mass murder and torture without witnesses. If there were no witnesses no one could be convicted. So he decided that if there is only one witness (nearly always a surviving victim) than his accusations were enough for conciction if the the situation fitted in a general pattern and even hearsay could be used if the all witnesses died. Here it is a little bit the same tghe case. The grandchild has hearsy from inside the family and the accusation fits in a general pattern of murdering by the Nazi's. So, in my opinion it is worth mentioning it, but with clearly indicating what the source is so that each reader can decide whether he/she believes the accusation. In general the reliability of sources is a major problem. I discovered overwhelming proof that one of the internationally most honoured historians deliberately falsified historical facts, probably for covering up deeds by secret servives and to protect the state for liability. So, what is a reliable source if the many works by a major historian cannot be trusted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fateh M. Malik: Shakhsiat-o-Fuun

I've undeleted the article as you probably have noticed. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 17:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

yes, thanks indeed, and I then redirected it to Fateh M. Malik and edited further. . The editor involved, as you'll have noticed, is being a bit of a problem. DGG (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Overspending

Hey. I would've changed my tune on the overspending afd, but I couldn't because I lost my internet connection on Friday night (mom forgot the bill again). I honestly didn't think the article stood a chance, but it did. Even admins and admin-potentials are wrong sometimes. If I had my connection back and if I hadn't !voted I would've closed that as a keep myself. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 22:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• speaking of overspending, you are in obvious need of an independent source of income. :) DGG (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Tell me about it. Srsly, I hope you don't take that AfD as a strike against me. People like Mandsford get my hopes up and then you shoot them down (kidding). Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 01:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

An argument for your reconsideration

DGG, Hello and thanks for all your great work. I am asking you to reconsider your Delete vote on the List of Morgan State University Athletic Hall of Fame. Several other universities, i.e.: University of Iowa Athletics Hall of Fame, University of Michigan Athletic Hall of Honor, Towson University Athletic Hall of Fame or Ohio State Varsity O Hall of Fame have exactly the same list. Why is there an Afd for the lone African American university? Are these athletes any less notable than those who attended large white Universities? I'll grant you that chronicling there notability is a bit tougher because very few major american newspapers reported on these athletes in the beginning of the last century. Even so, 20 of the athletes on Morgan's list have their own pages, with 4 being in the NFL Hall of Fame and there is an Olympic gold medal winner. I am working on improving the page so their feats won't be lost to the newer generations. I hope to get help from others in the Maryland project, but I have managed about 5 new articles in the past month with the latest, Edward P. Hurt, being featured on the DYK page. The point is this page is as important to our African American readers and researchers as any of the other university halls of fame are to non African Americans.--«Marylandstater» ^«reply» 03:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I will be delighted to vote for deleting every single one of the others. The same argument holds. (MIchigan may be a spcial case, if they are able to write articles on everyone there, as they seem to be trying--that turns it into Notable Michigan athletes, which is acceptable for any college. I recongize the difficulty of challenging some of the very strong PR departments and alumni there, but I am prepared to take it on. I am doing the nomination immediately as an add on to Morgan State. Thanks for mentioning it. But you are doing the very best course to display the athletic excellence in writing individual pages for the distinguished athletes who of course should include all Olympic contestants, not just winners. Then they can and should be highlighted as distinguished alumni in the main articles and mentioned also in the ones on the athletic teams. That's what really counts for excellence. Keep working from the top. DGG (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If by some chance we can not remove the others, than the argument of ethnic equity will indeed be relevant, and can a be perused energetically, buy I don;t think it would be a good idea to raise it now. I will help what I can within the limits of what I am willing to do more generally for everyone. But in any case I will look back at the argument tomorrow and see it goes fairly. . DGG (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Laffillé

Dear DGG,
Thank you vm for saving the arcticle. It is nice to find friends on enWP as I already have quite a few on frWP (you can obviously find all my accounts on my user page). This gives me a lot of motivation to translate asap the analysis section.
For your info, I posted a section on User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#Barbara Gluck
I find this user very strange when I check his stats. Best regards, Jatayou (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A JSTOR article

Can you provide some of the text of Hijacking, Freedom, and the "American Way", either on-wiki (if the needed portion is small enough) or by email? I'm specifically interested in the part where it talks about the hijacking mentioned at the talk page of 1972. I'm pretty sure it talks about this hijacking because of the snippets Google coughs up from the article. Ping me with Template:Talkback when you reply. Thanks, Graham87 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, its about the flight. Problem is its a very long PDF and I will have trouble sending it and JSTOR does not let me use any other format than the complete PDF. Most is irrelevant to your problem,, as it talks about the legal aspects--which, incidentally, are relevant to current US policy re Guantanamo. But let me try, I will need your email address, which you can send to me through WP email--I can not actually email this through WP, as it wont take attachments. Otherwise, tell me--do we have an article on the hijack? I could add information to that, with a good quotation. A convenient link for the text of the actual legal decision is [3]-- If you are interested in the flight, you will really want the book itself. DGG (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Thanks. I'm more interested in the flight, so I'll email you soon for the PDF. Would zipping the PDF up help with file size? I don't think we have an article about the hijacking on Wikipedia. In fact I couldn't find a mention of it anywhere bes

Speedy delete/delete?

Hey, you replaced my speedy delete with a delete on Dyad (spiritual workshops); could you let me know vaguely what the right criteria are? I had been under the impression that if I saw something that was just idiocy, a speedy was the proper response. Endersdouble (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I think it's fixable. Speedy has to be either so totally improper that it must be removed immediately, or something unfixable. And in any case, it must fit within one of the specific provisions of WP:CSD. Now while the article could be considered to have somewhat of a promotional intent about the method of therapy, it seemed somewhat descriptive also. So it does not fit under provision G11 " Pages which exclusively promote some entity ". Nor is it G1, patent nonsense or gibberish, because it can be understood, though the terminology is admittedly somewhat strange. Whether the method is idiotic or not is not the question here, Lots of things in the world are totally idiotic, and we have & should have articles on a great many of them; if they are notable & can be documented, idiocy is no barrier. It is not for us to judge what methods intended for psychological or spiritual improvement actually make sense. The next question is whether it is copyvio. I examined the site, and it seems to have be a GFDL compatible license. It is therefore not conceivably a copyright violation. There remains no basis for deleting it via speedy. Examine the rules for yourself. I placed a prod, rather than just removing the speedy, in the hope that perhaps nobody will step in to remove the prod. If is removed, you could take it to Afd. I cannot predict what will happen to it there--AfD is unpredictable. It is possible that if there are some published sources, andsomeone is willing to rewrite it, it might well be found acceptable. DGG (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Massage schools and ancient Persia

Hello again! Good to see you in the massage school AfD discussions that are online. Say, if you have a moment, can you please take a look at this AfD: [4]? This is actually among the most intriguing I've been involved with in a long while. Hope all is well. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I had stayed out of that one, because it seemed to be a dispute over matter of historical dates,but I took another look, & I agree with he more recent comments. DGG (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

my Deleted topics

Hello ! you have written on your page that "If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel, or personal information, and has not been deleted....." these my topics are deleted by wikipians, so could you help me. Muhammad Ibrahim (Singer)- Anwar Figar Hakro

and these are waiting for deletion Manzoor Ali Khan - List of Sindhi singers

Regards, --Mangrio (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if we can rescue the articles listed at AfD--by no means hopeless--see my comments there. As for the deleted ones, they;ve been emailed. I have the following advice:

see if you can find some references to reviews of the books, and to the awards. paper is OK. Sindhi language is OK--just give a translation of the key parts. Wait until the current AfDs are concluded, If favorable, write the articles on a subpage of your user space and ask at Deletion Review. I do not consider that either one of them at all mets the conditions for speedy, for notability was very plainly asserted, but there is no point asking for restoration unless there is some reasonable chance the article will be actually kept. DGG (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks I will try to creat with new content

--116.71.92.170 (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps

Check the page history. Author requests deletion is a valid reason for speedy. 152.3.25.133 (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

please see the comment by another edit at the MfD on it. [Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains of the Alps]. I agree with him--if the author requests deletion it can be deleted, but I'd suggest not doing it. DGG (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your encouraging comments on my talk page Domminico (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Ernestvoice and VoIP articles

Ernestvoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been tagging articles on several VoIP companies for speedy deletion or AfD. I have been able to rescue some by adding references, but I am worried that other articles for which references could probably be found have been speedily deleted. Could you please look at the deleted articles Parlino and Rebtel and either restore them or move them to my userspace? --Eastmain (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Parlino not really justified as speedy; Rebtel had been deleted at AfD [5]. I have userified them for you as [User:Eastmain/Parlino] and [User:Eastman/Rebtel] DGG (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Before I tag articles for deletion or speedy deletion. I asked myself, is this article written as a promotion? or is it a referencing a company that has contributed enough to gain notability. If I am sure that it is written as an advertisement, or used as a promotional tool, then I tag it as a speedy. If I am unsure, but need more opinions, then I tag it as AFD. If I am sure that it is not for advertising purposes, but it needs help, I tag it with the appropriate templates and in article tags. Could I ask why these articles, even though deletion agreed upon by either another administrator or a consensus of editors, were restored to some degree? Ernestvoice (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

For that offer. I'm not planning on any fivefold expansions for the rest of the week, but on my next one, I'll be sure to seek your advice! Thank you very much! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you being followed?

First: [6] and [7]. There's an ANI discussion regarding something related going on here: [8]. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

he seems to be following a lot of people besides me, including topics I never touch. DGG (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure project

Hi DDG. I'm new at Wikipedia and appreciate your help in this. Regarding the disclosure project page there are some things I find worded wrongly, creating bias.

Firstly this bit "The "Orion Project" also claims to be supporting the research of various people claiming to have produced "over-unity devices" (another term for perpetual motion), which are forbidden by basic physics." What does this have to do with the disclosure project? Sure similar people work on both but that can be said of alot of things, and so the orion project bit isn't truely relevant to the disclosure project. Also the reference to it being Perpetual Motion, the other side of it says that it is not a Perpetual Motion machine (a negative term in the scientific community) but it could draw energy from something called zero point energy (see: http://www.theorionproject.org/en/quantumvacuum.html ) It says there is a source for the energy for the devise to draw upon. I don't know if what they say is true but I find the current wording of the article biased against these people idea's. Either both or no sides must be presented.In the scientific community saying something is a perpetual motion machine is "evil" and extremely frowned upon, the people involved in this research themselves don't belive its a perpetual motion machine because it does aim to draw upon an energy source.

Secondly this bit "The Disclosure Project has selected the 'contactees' and self-proclaimed witnesses of UFOs it works with for previous military/governmental employment. James Randi has debunked this as way of validating the Project's claims, noting that this is a form of logical fallacy and that 'serious government credentials... say nothing about a person's eyesight [4]." I understand James Randi's argument but have issues with it in this instance. For example one of the "witnesses" (I use the term loosely because he himself witnessed nothing) is a FAA crash/incident investigator. He could be called upon in a court of law by a judge to offer his expert advise on a court case. This is what occurs in a court of law. As an expert in airplane crashes/incidents he investigated the data from an incident and concluded a vehicle of unknown origin was involved, unknown due to the extreme difference in manuevering between it and any known craft. He is an expert, a FAA investigator. What Mr Randi's argument says is "Because this man is and expert in investigating flight incidents doesn't mean his expert knowledge can carry weight". In courts everyday around the world this is wrong. Its like saying in a court "Just because this man is an expert auto mechanic doesn't mean he has any idea of what condition the car really was in even though he stuck his head under the bonnet and investigated". James Randi's argument is a very poor way of "debunking" the credentials, I think its biased. In fact James Randi is an expert "debunker" (I saw on his webpage) so his own argument basically debunks his debunking. Thats silly but logical.

Also the quote "serious government credentials... say nothing about a person's eyesight" an unfortunate quote as it suggests that all these people are "witnesses" from standing around in a field at night. If you talk about UFO's and question a persons eyesight then it wrongly implies the witnesses claim are from seeing strange lights in the sky. Some witnesses did but others claim to have read documents with interesting knowledge. What does "eyesight" have to do with that? Is James Randi suggesting the governement and military hire people who can't read properly to read documents? Its a poor quote that is ultimately misleading.

Thanks for your time, let me know your opinion. 131.217.6.6 (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC) PengoPenguin

I commented onh it briefly the same way I have for similar questions here previously. DGG (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The return (again) of Dollis Hill Synagogue

Hello again! (I hope I am not wearing out my welcome.) I accidentally came across a message you left last April to another admin regarding the restoration of a deleted article about the Dollis Hill Synagogue in London. [9] It appears your request was granted, but a couple of weeks later the article was deleted again due to copyright violations. It had not been restored since that time. Since you've been such a nice guy to me, I thought I would return the favour and try to ensure that the article doesn't get cut again. I hope it is okay, since this is not my area of expertise, but...Dollis Hill Synagogue. Let's hope third time is the charm with this article. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am happy to report that Dollis Hill Synagogue received a DYK honour this morning -- not bad for a twice-deleted piece! I need to thank you, again, as the article's return was rooted in your advocacy of its importance. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Check It Out!!

Thanks for the support!!! Check it Out Honorific titles in popular music with any feedback it looks good nowTalk:Honorific titles in popular music Kelvin Martinez (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD heads up

Hi DGG. Since you contested the prods, I assume you'll want to participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films about animals and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of G-rated films. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Einstein family

Hello DGG, I value your opinion highly on these kinds of issues, and I appreciate you bringing this up. I went through each family member article and looked for notability independent from familial ties to Albert. Some of them I left alone, for example all of his surviving children had some strong claims to notability, as did his wives. His parents however are only notable for being his parents, as is his sister, and the Lieserl article almost reads like a conspiracy theory. All of that flies in the face of WP:BIO#Family. However I see that someone has already removed the prods on each article (without explanation of course), and I don't feel like fighting this. I do appreciate your message, thanks again DGG. -- Atama^chat 15:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll double check the Lieserl one at least to see if they used sources properly. FWIW, I think that in general the interest in parentsis a blend of the assumption that the influence/heredity/family environment had something to do with the notability of the children and the simple desire to know everything possible about fascinating people. DGG (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Indian places

I commend your efforts to rescue the articles created by the copyviolator, but it seems like a lot of work. The most famous one is Mehtab Bagh, it was receiving pageviews before it was created. If I had time right now I'd try to fix that one. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed also. All I'm doing is stubbifying, and reworking the lede sentences, which is pretty fast. The next step will obviously be more time consuming, though hardly difficult, which is to look them up in a convenient book or encyclopedia and write a fuller description. It amazes me that some of these did not have articles previously. It might be wise to double-check for other possible names--I lack the knowledge to do that. DGG (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I too was surprized that some of them didn't have articles. I watched a whole show on the Mehtab Bagh (aka the moonlit garden) on Discovery/History/NatGeo/one of those channels a few months ago. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also rendered Mahtab Bagh, there are gobs of hits by that name too. I made a redirect, and wikilinked from the Taj Mahal; hopefully some editors will find the stub and lend a hand. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Common Impact

Hi, thank you for your suggestions on the Common Impact page. I tried to follow your advice but am open to other suggestions, too. I am continuing to have trouble removing some of the tags. Any ideas on how to continue to improve the tone and sounding like an advertisement? Thanks. Kmmd (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New page patrol

Hey, can you have a chat with Seascic? He nominated Terra Nova (blog) for a speedy under A7 (which clearly doesn't apply) and then when I asked for some reasoning he gave me a brushoff. I know new page patrol sucks. You aren't anyone's friend. You never give anyone a "good" message, it is just the nature of the job. But I don't feel that means a user on new page patrol should be immune from review or comment. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, he left a comment on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

glad for the satisfactory ending. You did very right to question such a speedy, for sometimes the person will recognize the mistake and learn better--maybe 1/3 of the time. (the original reaction was very much snappier than ordinary, though it would have been hard to step in after you first said you werent going to mention it to an admin.) :). DGG (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah. forgot that bit. Damn! I always forget that! ;) Thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

adoption

Hi DGG. I'm Soccer5525, and I understand that since you're an admin, you'll be able to answer some of my questions. Well right now, I have a question about Wikipedia adoption. What is it? --Soccer5525 (Tk • Ctrb) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Its explained at WP:ADOPT better than I could word it myself. I personally don't do this on a formal basis, but I will answer questions if I know the answers, and I will give advice, asked or unasked. I'm giving you some now--you seem inclined to overdo the social aspects of Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia, and the purpose of participation is writing and improving articles. In the course of it, you will work with people, and form friendships--potentially involving other things than Wikipedia. The parts involving other things are better kept off Wikipedia--for personal messages consider email and IM and Skype and all the rest of the range of electronic social interactions. The best way of making personal contacts is through cooperation on articles of policy problems, and, if you live near any of the local chapters or meetups, join. See WP:MEET and [10]. DGG (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheaper by the Dozen

I have been doing a bit of improvement of the articles associated with Cheaper by the Dozen and Belles on Their Toes. I have found a lot of inconsistency among various sources about the authorship and the dates of publication etc. Some say Cheaper by the Dozen was published in 46, some 48, some 49 and some 50 (Washington Post article claiming 1948). Do your library databases provide better publication information? --Filll (talk | wpc) 02:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Worldcat had nothing before 1948, with publication by Crowell, OCLC 560904, and Grosset & Dunlap OCLC 3112971. LC has unambiguously 1948. what you want to find for exactness is the original book review or an actual discussion of th publication history.DGG (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Apostolic Christian Church of America

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

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

Before you block this account

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bugnot needs a serious look at, he's working very very fast and unbalancing many articles and creating other equally NPOV article for example: Iraq War Scandal. Someone might want to put the brakes on before it gets out of control. --Frederick day (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

not vandalism-only, and no prior warning. I will give a level 4 warning & follow up. I see the problem clearly enough . DGG (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the ironies of the block of Fredrick day is that he was very active in trying to get other users blocked and in, then, exposing block evasion, as well as in accusing me of being a sock or puppet master.... Now, it seems, he's registered a new account and is tossing it into the bonfire, Frederick day. And he's been socking as well as Prisongangleader, now blocked, a reference to a post of mine on AN/I which is referenced from the current RFCU for Prisongangleader. He apparenty fancies himself a leader of the deletionists, who seem to be waking up to him not being such a great standard-bearer. Non-stop, should be his middle name. None of which, of course, makes his report false. But I'd certainly advise caution! --Abd (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The "before you block this account" was in reference to my obvious sock - it's worth throwing away to alert people to bad practice (POV folks, using wikipedia as a circular reference, creating and recreating a deleted BLP vio etc etc). --Frederick day (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Like dermochelyiids of the Cenezoic period, Mesodermochelys has a reduced processus trochlearis oticum formed by prootic." What does this term mean? Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

this is referring to the bones that comprise the ear region, whose details are of great importance in the reptile skeleton. It is very hard to learn this material from the primary journal papers, and you should really start with one of the standard books. The classic place to start and widely available is Romer, Alfred Sherwood. "Vertebrate Paleontology." Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966, or one of its earlier editions. The next place to go after understanding the basic morphology might be to one of his books specifically on the reptiles, such as "Osteology of the Reptiles. "Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. (There are probably newer books, but these are the ones I know, and widely available--and the terminology does not change rapidly. ) You are apparently working with the Google translation of a Japanese absrtract, and the approximate translation doesnt help. I'd word it as "a reduced trochlear oticum process formed by the prootic bone" - one of the key bones in question (process in this context is a part of a bone). It is very hard to explain this material in words, without referring to the labeled diagrams and you won't get much help from the Wikipedia articles, which refer to human anatomy. The abstract in question is from a conference session, intended for experts who already understand the anatomy and can visualize it from the names. It's from a poster session, & probably even for such experts a diagram was included at the actual session as well. I would never attempt to understand any subject from conference abstracts -- the most specialized of all publication media-- without knowing a great deal about it first. You seem to be starting at the wrong end, one of the classic problems of amateurs--they do not get started in the traditional educational way. But one does not need to learn from a formal course if there are books. However, the virtue of formal courses in biology is the ability to work with actual three-dimensional specimens in conjunction with the books. DGG (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem. These journals I'm using as sources are the only sources I've been able to find; I tried using Google book search for help, but that yielded no results. Thank you for your help, anyway! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Article on popular sovereignty

Hello again. I just skimmed through the article on popular sovereignty, and parts of it (most of which appear to come from this edit) read a lot like an essay for an American history course. I've already tagged it for focusing too narrowly on the United States, but I have a feeling that it violates other conventions as well, and I'd appreciate it if you could provide a second, more seasoned opinion. – SJL 21:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

either that or someone imitating the style. There is after all no reason why someone experienced at being a student might not choose to write the same way here, even though the ideal style is considerably different. (It's of course more worrisome that it might be some else's essay or summary.) On the more general question, I simply do not know the extent to which this term is used in other contexts than US history--the solution here is that, if you find it is, to add additional material; I wouldn't blame someone for writing about only part of the material, if that is what they understand, as long as they make the limitation clear--and I think the present structure of the article does make that clear.. Again, not idea, but by accumulating the work of people who know the different parts is how Wikipedia grows. AYour tag is very appropriate in attracting people who might add whatever else is needed.DGG (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I can say with certainty that the concept is not limited to American history, and I will try to improve at least the lead if I can find the time. The other issue that I was wondering about, though, is where to draw the line on what constitutes original research. The footnotes, for example, contain quite a bit of additional commentary which, among other things, makes me think that this may actually be a term paper, and not just read like one. – SJL 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry--I was careless and didn't check them--they are problematic. It's been much debated on WP to what extent to include such quotations in the footnotes--there are some people who think it should be routine, and they have the good argument that the reader may not be able to get to the sources, printed sources in particular, and the argument I think good only in some instances that the actual quote is needed to evaluate the quality of the reference (blp is one place where most would agree it is needed). I'm not so sure, as I think an encyclopedia should read like popular text, and I've read too many term papers to want to see any more of that genre--I see you're just starting out in that line of work. But you did read well, the exact wording of those notes is absolutely that of a rather careful academic paper, so careful as to make me really wonder about the possible copypaste source. They seem to have mostly been introduced at one time by [11], and there is an equally problematic edit for a related article at [12]--and not much else from that editor. The two articles together makes this a problem. Are you comfortable following up with him--gently? I'll keep track. Email me if necessary. DGG (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost finished my Ph.D., actually, and I think the past five years of grading helped me spot the particular characteristics of this article quickly. ;) I'll follow up with him and let you know how it goes. – SJL 02:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Holmes

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

1960s fads and trends in North America

Hello DGG,

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

Perhaps a little smile?

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

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

School's in

I appreciate your message on the subject. But pending an overhaul of WP:SCHOOL (which seems waaaaay too broad), it appears we are stuck with every U.S. high school that wants to have an article about itself. Oh well, it could be worse. Say, I never heard back from you on my restoration of the Dollis Hill Synagogue article -- I hope it stays online for good. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It seemed OK, so I've just watchlisted it. Let me know if there are problems. And the point of the schools compromise is that we are not stuck with incessant demands for elmentary schools, of which there are several times more, and much less to say about them.. DGG (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Champagne Coupe Theory of Everything

No physical theory to date is believed to be precisely accurate. Instead, physics has proceeded by a series of "successive approximations" allowing more and more accurate predictions over a wider and wider range of phenomena. Some physicists believe that it is therefore a mistake to confuse theoretical models with the true nature of reality, and hold that the series of approximations will never terminate in the "truth". Einstein himself expressed this view on occasions. On this view, we may reasonably hope for a theory of everything which self-consistently incorporates all currently known forces, but should not expect it to be the final answer. On the other hand it is often claimed that, despite the apparently ever-increasing complexity of the mathematics of each new theory, in a deep sense associated with their underlying gauge symmetry and the number of fundamental physical constants, the theories are becoming simpler. If so, the process of simplification cannot continue indefinitely.

The Champagne Coupe Theory of Everything (CCToE) has been put forward in late 2007 firstly, in the Fire list of Prometheus Society of high IQ (1 in 32,000 IQ and above), to address in a new way the development of the TOE. A member of the Mega Society (that touts 1 in 1,000,000 IQ's and above)

RoddyYoung (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

as far as I am concerned, the name of it is what sufficiently indicates the nonsense. Provide me here a 3rd party independent reliable published source for the name, print or online (but not blogs or press releases), and I will undelete the article and send it for a community opinion at WP:Articles for deletion.DGG (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

PRUPRIM

I don't understand. How could a move mess up edits, doesn't it move everything? --Blechnic (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you and the other editor are editing right now. Anyway, you now have the abbreviation twice in the intro sentence. What does TOC mean? --Blechnic (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Table of contents. See WP:TOC for how they can be forced to be displayed or not displayed, along with many many options. DGG (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Message

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Tnxman307's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, I added a colon to a category in another editor's message, as it was accidentally adding your talk page to a non-existent category. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

glad you solved that--I saw it but had not yet figured it out. DGG (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Karel Van Eycken

Importance not withstanding could you point me to the claim of notability within the article which I overlooked? Also could you help me understand PROD a little better (like does it have criteria that I should be quoting or do I just revert back to the notability thing)?. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was in some doubt myself until I spotted that his biography of Martinu " brought him contacts with the Czech musical world. He was honoured for that work in Prague where he received the Bohuslav Martinu Medal," which is perhaps a significant award, but certainly enough of a claim to pass speedy. Normally a composer whose work is still mostly unperformed, unrecorded and apparently unpublished would probably no be rather dubious. As for PROD, its a method and the criterion can be whatever might be used for any deletion discussion at Afd or elsewhere-- no documentation for notability is probably what's relevant. Bu you really ought to try first to see if you can document the award or find a review of the music, because in that case it should go to afd instead, or if the prize is really important or the reviews significant and in Reliable sources, just remove the prod--for he then probably would actually be notable. DGG (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I'll have a more indepth look than previously and see if I can find anything about him this time. Particularly around the award win and maybe if I'm lucky the author will take notice of the tags and work on improving the article (particularly formatting and references). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Lists of basic topics

Hi. Here's an update of what we've been up to in this WikiProject...

We've created a page for every country of the world! They're not complete, and most of them aren't even in the main namespace yet, but...

A team of editors has been working on them, and the pages have come a long way.

We're about to run a competition, called "Around the World", in which participants will compete in the completion of specific data items across all of these country lists. For example, one task would be adding the population figure on each page.

The awards images are almost done, and the pages themselves need a couple sections completed before they can be moved to the article namespace and the competition can begin.

We could sure use your help...

Track down the administrative divisions types for each country

The first task is on the "Administrative divisions of" sections.

In each of these sections, there's an initial hierarchical list of the division types in that country, followed by subheadings for each of the types. Unfortunately, the types listed are those from the template I used to create these pages, and they aren't accurate for many countries.

The defaults that I used were:

• Provinces of x
  • Districts of x
    • Municipalities of x

(Where "x" is the name of each country).

For each country, change the links to the names of the administrative divisions for that country, adding more links if there are more than 3 division types. Those that are subdivisions of another type are indented under the parent type. In most cases, you would leave municipalities in place, because that's a generic name for "city". We'll blue-link those later. (Blue-linking is creating a redirect so that a link turns blue - that way, the link remains standardized on all the pages in the set).

Also change the subheadings in the same section to match the initial list, including the "main article" links presented just below each subheading.

To find out what the administrative divisions are for a country so you can add them, try looking on the government of x or politics of x pages for that country, and on the country's main article as well.

Add the administrative divisions to their respective subsections

For each country, find the list of administrative division for each type, and add them under that type's subheading.

For example, copy and paste the provinces listed at Provinces of Angola under the "Provinces of Angola" subheading on that country's list page.

See the countries listed at Lists of basic topics for examples of how this has been done for those. If there's a map showing the administrative divisions, grab it too.

Generally do not add towns and cities to the municipalities section, as there are usually way too many of them (and will unnecessarily bloat the page). Instead, provide links to the various pages (Cities of x, [[[Towns of x]], Villages of x, etc.

Complete the "Government of x" section

This section also has temporary data, and needs to be corrected/completed. The titles of the head of state and head of government of each country need to be corrected, and the specific office holders added. The branches of government subheadings need to be corrected/filled in. Etc.

The above tasks are fun, because it's interesting to see how other countries operate. I've completed about 25 of the country pages so far, and I've been intrigued and even amazed at some of the approaches different countries follow. The U.S. is definitely behind in many respects.

Please help out as much as you can, and help us get Around the World started! Sincerely, The Transhumanist 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Frank Joseph Haas

You said coverage was notable, but the coverage is for the same legal case. I'd say the case is notable, but Haas by himself is not (thus BLP1E). Can I be bold and redirect to a section in the GLWV article (or create it; I'm not sure it exists), or do I need to build consensus? I have a real problem because of JASpencer's POV; he makes no bones about his anti-Masonic stance, and his editing pattern shows that he only seems to add articles about Masons involved in things he can show as being unfavorable to the fraternity. MSJapan (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The really valid question you raise is whether the identical material belongs here twice in two articles. I'm not sure which way the merge shoudld go. I would not apply BLP 1E here, since its a general issue, not one concerning him personally. As for the WV article, the best thing to do there is to see if you can first add content about other things than this--see the articles on the other state lodges for some possibilities. And then propose the merge, and it can be discussed. Burt tis not a mater of bargaining between us, but what the interested part of the community should think. DGG (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For general article changes, I was asked to make some suggestions because I stepped in as a knowledgeable neutral party, but I don't have access to the right material to be able to add other content; I'm hoping someone else does. Also, the lawsuit isn't general, but rather concerns Haas personally - the goal is not to re-implement his reforms (value judgment aside, there was nothing irregular about the manner in which they were overturned), but to reverse his expulsion, because due process was violated. Because the suit is against GLWV as an entity, I'd rather see it in that article than duplicated in bio about thew plaintiff, all of which material is drawn from the lawsuit articles. I suppose a merge proposal won't kill anything, so I'll try it for now, and I'll add it to the Freemasonry project page to try to get it some exposure to get some sort of consensus. MSJapan (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew J. Schwartzberg

Hey. Just thought I'd let you know that he was actually assistant editor, not full editor. And even then, only for five years. Plus, even if his position is notable, there are still no secondary sources that pertain to him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

commented there. Would be glad for more specific information. DGG (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

Hi, thanks for letting me know - I'm glad it's been fixed. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ligase chain reaction

Why not just delete the cv revisions entirely and leave your own version? The topic is plainly notable, so the AFD shouldn't be an issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of doing exactly that. DGG (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was suggesting removing the revisions themselves and not just the content, or delete the article and paste your version with AFD tag...or uh, whatever works...Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

galagedara

sir, galagedara articles are duplicated.there are no six galagedara in sri lanka. the correct one is Galagedara, Central Province. would you please look into the matter.--Chanakal (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

perhaps you can tell me, is the name used both for the town and the "electorate" -- what is an electorate, exactly, a division of a District. ? or is it the town exclusively? I gather that Kandy district is the part of Central Province in which the town and the electorate are located. Is there a good map online for this? DGG (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

it's a common practice to name an electorate after the biggest town in that electorate. there is a electorate called galagedara named after galagedara the biggest town in that electorate.electorate is where is a voter registered to vote and results of the election is given in electorate-wise.i think constituency is the widely used word.this map could be useful to you type galagedara.thank you --Chanakal (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need articles on individual electorates/constituencies--they would correspond to the US election districts (except that US election districts have completely artificial boundaries typically arranged to maximize one party's position, and not usually corresponding to anything geographic or jurisdictional), and we do not include articles on them. They probably also correspond to the Philippine Barangays, and we do not routinely have articles on them. I will merge the articles tonight. Perhaps you will want to add some additional content after that. I'm not sure, though about the title--per the MOS, I think we usually just use Galagedara unless the word has another meaning also. DGG (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problems

I received your correspondence concerning copyright concerns on articles I contributed to. The contributions were quite a long time ago, and I am much more aware of copyright concerns on Wiki for quite some time, and endeavor to avoid such accusations. If any further issues arise concerning my contributions, it can only be from those made some time ago. Shoreranger (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

quite right, they wr frm way back when. all clear now. My apologies DGG (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

I'm sorry, that was a stupid mistake on my part, and I've noted that in the undeletion log. I must have missed that bit. Apologies for any confusion/irritation. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

With incompetently written articles like that one, its very easy too miss thing swhen one patrols rapidly. I spotted this because that article had puzzled me too. DGG (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

DGG - you were kind enough to help me with my aritcle in Septmeber of 2007. Now there is a new problem. The birth date is incorrect. It was taken from a source that got it wrong and will not change it. Is there a way to remove the birthdate and the reference? I would appreciate your help with this.Stephen (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want it corrected,or omitted? If you want it changed, the first step in this is to post your evidence to the talk page of the article. IMdB is not considered a reliable source at Wikipedia if there is more authoritative material, and we can deal with it from there. If what you want is the day of the year omitted but the year is OK, this is normally considered information that will be omitted on request for living people. Send a letter requested it the way specified at WP:OTRS. Omitting the year entirely is a little more unusual, but if that's what you really want, again go through OTRS. They are prepared to deal confidentially with requests. DGG (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

DGG - Thank you so much for your prompt response - very much appreciated. I looked at OTRS and am a bit confused about who to contact. Should I write to "Permissions" or should I write to an OTRS Volunteer? ...or?Stephen (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Permissions is for people giving copyright permissions, which they also handle. You write to info-en-q@wikimedia.org . Before you do that, read the pertinent sections of the following for advice on how to ask. [14]. If you simply want to explain the situation and get advice first, you can send email to me from the link on the left of this page. It will be treated as confidential. DGG (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Optimal classification, again

Hi David - I noticed that User:Julie Dancer recently moved the optimal classification article to wikibooks:Optimal Classification and started adding links to it to several articles here - most have already been reverted by other editors, but the link on Attribute-value system is still standing. I was wondering if you have any advice on how to deal with the situation. Thanks! --Jiuguang (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So far Jiuguang you have been allowed to get away with harassing Julie. You need to leave her alone. Linking here to the Wikipedia is not against Wikipedia rules although you may pretend that it is when it is not. Eventually someone here will read her Wikia articles and the reference she cited for the article you forced her to move and see your motives plain and simple. Until that happens you and your comrade buddies must deal with me. Clem 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not even an active editor at wikibooks, let alone an administrator. You'll have to check their policies. Clem, saying "have to deal with me" is sometimes regarded as a threat, so you might want to edit it a little. DGG (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - just as an update, Clem has been blocked for a week (see User talk:kadiddlehopper), and the WikiBooks article has been taken to AfD (see wikibooks:Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Optimal Classification). --Jiuguang (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi David - I appreciate the feedback on the Boston Medical Group page. I'm very new to the Wikipedia universe (thought I did something wrong the 1st time the content was deleted) but I'll certainly try to make it a better page based on your feedback about 3rd party citations, etc. I appreciate your help.

One question though: I believe that it is informative to list clinic locations on WP, as it is educational to the reader. There is no way to let that fly, or is there another way you suggest notating it>?

Thanks

there is a very good way to do it: list them on your own web site. The link at the bottom of the page will go there, and the web site is where anyone would expect to find them. Our purpose is to provide encyclopedic, not directory information, and that's pretty much the epitome of directory information. The mention that there are foreign branches in the article is sufficient to call attention to that, and the number of branches is also relevant to notability of the group. DGG (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

july 2008

Please do not rehash settled issues on peoples talk pages dont abuse your admin power by doing so i was wrong its a settled issue stop being an admin troll and move on like i have--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

and another thing i remove all sorts of things off my talk page be it negative postive or anything thats my buisness you dont like it to bad i just removed your comment as well cheers and good day--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As you had not been given a formal warning, I thought & continue to think it necessary and appropriate to do so. It was not intended as unfriendly. I appreciate the acknowledgment that you have read the warning. (It was about removing other people's comments from article talk pages.) As I said, you do have the right to remove anything you like from your talk page. It is merely an inconvenience to the project, since everything remains in the page history. BTW, I have used no administrative powers at all in this--any WP ed. can leave a warning. DGG (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

i was removing the talk page thread because i thought it violated a wiki policy maybe you should observe good faith as opposed to thinking it was bad faith move that is why i acknowledge i was wrong about "the policy"not just by my actions and ceased any further action for sometime. You come to my talk page and made a smug comment about removing threads from my own talk page, so botton line i had good faith on my mind but you like so many assume bad faith and did not warrant a warning from a rogue admin such as your self good faith does not warrant warnings just and explanation on why i am wrong would do just fine--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you understand the situation--I expressed what was the general view at AN/I, one that I do agree with. I thought it unfair to you that there had been no formal warning--in fact the discussion mentioned that you had not even been notified promptly. But if you will not believe in the good intentions of people dealing with you, I will no be able to convince you of them. It is not to your interests to continue a discussion where you make this evident. DGG (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)