User talk:DGG/Archive 23 Dec. 2008

Topical Archives: Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , IPC & Fiction, WP:Academic things & people, Journals
General Archives: Sep08, Oct08, Nov08, ... , Jan09, Feb09, Mar09,

Lap Dancing Association?

just wondering but arn't you kind of jumping the gun on this one? I provided a blog link and tried to add as much as i could. your view on this is probably thinking i created it as a attempt of vandalism but i say its a real association and i'am not making it up. anyway thanks --Furahong (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

you may well be right. I'll undelete and let some other admin decide. I suggest a better link that that. The problem is that most such articles are in fact vandalism, using some real person's name. DGG (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for reasoning DGG. --Furahong (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Addressing Comments re: Bennet Wong

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

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

AfD nomination of DEK Computer Center

An article that you have been involved in editing, DEK Computer Center, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DEK Computer Center. Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ellen Hambro

Hi DGG! I must say that your "delete" vote on Ellen Hambro surprises me greatly, especially considering that the well-respected general purpose encyclopedia Store norske leksikon covers her. That encyclopedia is the Norwegian counterpart to Encyclopedia Britannica. The position she has, director of the Norwegian Pollution Control Authority, is the equivalent of being the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I can't see ourselves deleting Stephen L. Johnson anytime soon (even though he is not covered in SNL). On the inclusionist-deletionist line, I would think calling for the deletion of someone covered in a traditional encyclopedia article to be off the scale. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I realised after I went to bed last night that I had misperceived the significance of the position there-- so I've just changed the !vote. As for encyclopedia, I think we need to check their policies about just what they do cover, and how and I'm not familiar with that one. For The EB, we cover everyone about whom there is an article, not everyone they may mention. For the ODNB we cover everyone for whom there a full article or sub-article, but not everyone they mention. An encyclopedia might also contain directory type listings, and it was in this case challenged whether the listing was of his nature. How long is the article devoted to her? It would help to quote it, perhaps on the article talk page. As also challenged there, how far down the level of seniority do they go? do they include her assistants, for example? DGG (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for revisiting the discussion. I have put up some lines on what SNL is on the AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Helping Hand?

Hello David, need to ask a favor. I have been working on an article concerning Alpha Gamma Kappa, that was deleted as a result of no references/sourcing. I have only been able to come up with one independent – 3rd party reference. It seem this group is even more closed mouth than even Skull and Bones :-). I know you have access to several different search engines/models/sites/services that are not common or available to the general public/lay person. Could you either point me in the right direction or offer assistance of any sort? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular sources on this subject. I suggest consulting a librarian at a school of podiatry. I find it exceedingly odd that a professional level fraternity, as distinct from an undergraduate one, should be secretive. I notice there are other such societies--are they perhaps more important? DGG (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DGG I know, I have tired numerous searches under different genres with the same results. Podiatrists list the fraternity on resumes - colleges list the fraternity in their hand-books/recruitment brochures, however the fraternity itself has no web site and the information out there is little or none, at least to what I can find. It is a shame, a close friend of mine, who recently passed away, was a podiatrist. I could have just asked him. Oh well, thanks again for your insight. I will keep looking. By the way, Happy Holidays. ShoesssS ^Talk

Big Sky

Inre your "keep" here, I agree with your statement, but ask that you check this question the nom sent and I answered here. In the case of Young Pictures, there was certainly a number of notable films they had done, but there was absolutley nothing to be found of them. Their coverage was less than trivial. In Big Sky's case, the covergae was slightly more than trivial. Was I wrong in the Young case? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

you are not wrong. The Young article had no references at all besides their web site, and Big Sky does. (I assume for the moment that a full-scale search would have in fact have found nothing more. ) You say quite correctly that this is decisive in borderline cases. I will not necessarily work very hard searching for something that doesn't look like it will repay the effort. This isn't my subject, but I think it is possible for a production company to be sometimes just a shell and avoid any real involvement, in which case my argument might not apply. I do not really know the status of either of these personally. DGG (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Good call. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

July 29 in rail transport

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AFD reply

Thanks for your comments on my talk page about AFD's. I've left a reply there (normally I don't leave replies on my own talk page but if the conversation is being followed from elsewhere, what the heck. To save you a few clicks, here's what I wrote:

I agree 100%. I have been advocating a "minimum time" between nominations for awhile now and I think I even posted a comment suggesting same at one of the "town pump" discussion pages, only to have it ignored. Certainly any AFD that passes with a clear "keep" decision within 4-6 weeks prior should be closed because most recent issues would have been addressed in the prior discussion. 23skidoo (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple of questions

I have a couple of questions. 1) There are a series of articles on community wireless networks such as Ptawug in various stages of being deleted. There are some news stories on the phenomenon and I'm wondering if you think the could be combined into a notable article? Community Wireless networks or community wireless networks in Africa and redirected? 2) Regarding this rather promotional bio Rachel Hirschfeld Esq., the proper stlye would be to remove Esq. from the title? What about in the intro? Are titles ever used? Dr.? Phd? What are the rules governing this? Thanks for your time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Write the article--it would seem to me to be appropriate in any case. . Whether it should mention specific community networks is another matter-- it would normally mention only the most important, most distinctive, or original ones, not every one in existence. If the various individual networks are semi-notable (an undefined term here) it is sometimes possible to write a combination article (but there are no clear rules for doing so). The relevant principle is NOT DIRECTORY--it can not be done in such a manner as to turn the article into a directory. And for the avoidance of spam, we do not permit, say, individual restaurants to redirect to the article on restaurant. such redirects are routinely deleted at RfD. It is sometimes possible to select references in such a way as to mention specific ones -- but again these must be the ones that are most significant, if there is a choice--otherwise its spam.
2. We always remove such titles. Just move the article. The title can be kept in the article the first time the name is mentioned. This is fully covered in WP:MOS. DGG (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Aymatth2 really ran with the WUG article projects. I think the South African wireless user groups article is particularly interesting. The Wireless user group article covers the phenomena more generally. I thought I'd bring them to your attention in case you're interested and because your guidance was helpful in the matter. (Don't bother with the AfD, it's sailing through with a perfect score).ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Dont the OLPC computers operate as one alternative under such a system--it should probably be mentioned. DGG (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

American Hunters and Shooters Association

Hi, I'm asking you to take a look at the lead section for American Hunters and Shooters Association. I was asked to intervene here a while back and got involved in trying to clean up some POV etc. But now I'm a bit mired in the controversy in trying to tone down the lead. I'm comming to you because you are a respected and cool headed editor. Just looking for a reality check here. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Walter Paisley

Dear DGG, regarding this, in at least this source the actor discusses portraying the "same" character in the five different films. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD Discussions

Sorry for causing disruption, I was told if it's not a category for CSD, and looks like it needs to be deleted, to nominate it at AfD. I didn't mean to upset you guys, I'll just stay out of the AfD. Neuro√Logic 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave you some advice on your talk page. Just go more carefully, and learn by experience what works and what does not work. DGG (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I will look over the criteria more carefully. I made this mistake of being Bold my first time here, and was called a meat-puppet. I try to be more careful, but not enough it seems. Like I said: Sorry about the disruption. I'll keep out of your hair. Neuro√Logic 23:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Example of AFD renomination

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

sources

No problem - I DO think it's notable - it's just that the current sourcing is awful and a lot of it seems to WP:SYN. I'll leave it to you for a bit. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made a brief comment and hope to leave it at that. I would be very surprised--pleasantly surprised, of course--to see any positive results from an RfC/U. DGG (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Same here, thanks again! BOZ (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for endorsing one or more summaries in the RFC. Please note that two proposals have been put forward on how we can move on after the RFC: Casliber's proposal and Randomran's proposal. Please take the time to look over these proposals, and consider endorsing one of them, or writing one of your own. Thanks again for your participation! BOZ (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Check User

Can you or someone please run a checkuser on this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Coruscant I have a very strong suspicion that they are either a sock or meat puppet for Dynaguy.JJJ999 (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just an ordinary base-level admin, and I don't have checkuser -- ask at WP:RFCU. DGG (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have any insight into the background of this request it would be highly welcome at User_talk:Lar#Check_User_request_from_JJJ999 where it was raised as well. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have not been following this issue. DGG (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RE

Okay, thanks for the advice! I'll try and bear it in mind - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dynablaster again

Can you please protect the Farenheight page from his continual reverts and tags? I know you dislike the appearance of taking sides, but frankly I think it should be reverted to the version with no tag until he actually engages with the substance and proposes his own rewrites on the talk page. As it is protecting it with the tag will just encourage him to continue his bait and switch tactics. I've asked him for a proposed rewrite with you as arbiter multiple times so this can be resolved, but he refuses and then takes about 5 positions at once. He won't propose a rewrite, because I'll disagree. So he wants to wait for "other editors". Then if none come in a few days he's basically said he'll alter it without consulting me anyway. This is getting absurd. His replies are long enough, but they dodge almost every bit of substance I post.JJJ999 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The question is over the placement of a POV tag. Edit warring over placement of a tag is lame. I will not get involved in such disputes, and I'm not going to fully protect an article over it. If he puts it back, leaves it. Do not call someone a "borderline vandal" in edit summaries. It never helps. Personally, I do no see how M's admission the OBL's guilt is now proven makes M either a liar or a hypocrite, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Creating a monster

Check out the monstrosity I've created at candies. Any thoughts? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a monster yet, but it soon will be. You might want to see if there is any pre-existing classification scheme in existence. Try industry web sites. DGG (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism_of_the_Talmud

Hey, I've given this some meaningful thought since yesterday. These are so tough to handle. One doesn't want to thwart a worthy and helpful topic, but also, one doesn't want a crit treatment on a core topic which is wholly unsourced original research which doesn't follow reliable sources or worse, could woefully mislead readers. As you know, this one had some text which some readers could have taken (I don't know what the editor's intent was) very wrongly. Do you have any thoughts? Gwen Gale (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't email. All communication is done on wiki. What is the point of having a blank article for a week? just start the article when you have some actual content. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) The article has been blank only from yesterday. Gwen blanked it to remove content that she thought problematic. I want to keep it so I can use stuff from the talk p. more easily. OK, since you don't want to use email, then I'm going to ask you here. Looking at your edit history, there is an obvious question: are you a renamed user? If there is a true confidentiality problem here just refer me to an admin who knows the situation. DGG (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a renamed user. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you a previously anon user? Don;t tell me who, of course. You have the right to privacy on that. I am asking because , frankly, it is a little unusual for new users coming on and almost immediately working on complicated problems and challenging articles in a sophisticated way -- I am not primarily referring to the present one under discussion. As for the article, I've decided it's too big a job to attempt at the moment. I will return to it when I am less involved in the defense of fictional content.

Gwen, thank's for your assistance. I've deleted it & the talk p. as housekeeping, though that does not exactly fit the situation. DGG (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. The housekeeping cat along with your note looks ok to me, since by reading the whole (short) log one can easily understand what happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your question about sophisticated "usage", I'm not really sure what to say to you? Before I decided I liked making lots of money, I was an academic and I investigated information seeking behaviour and usage -so I'm em.. bright (plus I'm a speed reader in the true sense of the word, so I can read multiple policy pages in a very short period of time)? Although I occasionally got caught up on elements of policy that don't work the ways that I *think* that would work in relationship to other policies (and many are pretty counter-intuitive such as our naming policy), I find that wikipedia is a fairly easy environment to navigate if you are a student of online communication and the human condition :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

the tag

About the article, for what it's worth, although I'd rather see it deleted until there's sourced content, I'm ok (speaking only for myself) with the tag being there for a few days if DGG is handling it, since there's so much happening on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Move Novelty theory to Timewave zero?

It's just over a week since I started a discussion on the talk page of Novelty theory proposing that it be moved to Timewave zero, per your suggestion. So far, one person (the page creator) has agreed with the move, and no-one else has responded. (I notified the top six non-IP contributors to Novelty theory.) Is that enough time and consensus for the move? Cardamon (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

yes; since it will take a deletion to clear up the redirects, I will need to do it as an admin, and I just did. The redirects will get cleaned up automatically, but it take a day or so. DGG (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cardamon (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Research request

Hi There, I saw that you have access to many journals and would like to know if you can get me the article... The Enamelled Mead: history and practice of exotic perennials grown in grassy swards,... from the journal...Landscape Research, Volume 25, Issue 1 March 2000 , pages 29 - 47. This is for an article I would like to create on Enamelled Mead, which is a gardening technique. If you can, please email it to bbriggs@tridentseafoods.com.

I will check this page so if you cannot or I need to make the request in a different way please let me know.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.6.82 (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) I do not have convenient access to that one. Though it my take a while, do it as an interlibrary loan request through your local public library. I think you are in a city with good libraries. In addition, the University of Washington Library has it in print--for information, [1] DGG (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review You Voted in Favor of Relisting/Overturn

FYI, you voted to either re-list or overturn this article [2] after a 2nd AfD deletion. Unfortunately the article now, is incomplete with sources from the state when it was set for a 2nd AfD, many source links, found on this page, [3] are now deleted. This is unfair and perhaps you can help get this straight and give Wikipedia a better name for what it stand for. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Restore and rewrite?

Thank you for your sensible and appropriate reaction to my deletion review request - I truly appreciated your comments. I am (understandably|very) interested in having the article restored in some form or another. I would really appreciate the opportunity to wikify the article from a neutral perspective but am unable to access the article cache. Another admin mentioned the possibility of userfying the article for editing? How would one go about requesting that?

Thank you for the input you have already offered. Any further advice would be greatly appreciated. Markle1111 (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It has already been restarted by another ed.DGG (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

2 Cents Requested

Can you look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 29#De Sitter invariant theories. I think a large part of the answer of what to do now comes down to a question of which journals are authoritative in Physics, and you might well have useful thoughts there. (And you do care a thing or two about deletion...) GRBerry 00:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

how to merge

I made this edit [4] moving some about to be deleted content. Can I do that? Do I have to propose a merger first? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve G. Jones

My page,"Steve G. Jones", was deleted for blatant advertising. I would like the opportunity to remove the advertising and still have the page up. If you Google "Steve G. Jones Hypnotherapy", you will see that there are a lot of articles, etc. about me on the internet. I feel that having a page about me is vital to the continuity of Wikipedia. Please let me know how to make the changes so that this resource can remain on Wikipedia. Thank you, Steve G. Jones, M.Ed., Clinical Hypnotherapist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevegjones (talk • contribs) 02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

replied on your talk pageDGG (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Jett Blakk

Would you review your speedy decline of Jett Blakk again? It's *very* promotional, and was written by Jett Blakk (talk · contribs). Furthermore, I don't think it qualifies as WP:N, since he's only been nominated for the XBIZ award. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

it asserts awards. I doubt they are substantial, but that's a question for afd. Given the frequency of re-creation of articles in this field, it's a safer method of deletion. DGG (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Some advice?

Hi there, I was wondering if you could make sure I'm looking in the right direct. David Krikorian was deleted via Afd, the deletion was taken to DR and it closed as an endorsement of the deletion. Now it seems a user has recreated the article and it's worse than it was before. Does this have to be taken back to another Afd or would a PROD be more appropriate? Thanks for your help. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

tag it as speedy deletion for recreation of material deleted at an AfD -- see WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review You Voted in Favor of Relisting/Overturn

FYI, you voted to either re-list or overturn this article [5] after a 2nd AfD deletion. Unfortunately the article now, is incomplete with sources from the state when it was set for a 2nd AfD, many source links, found on this page, [6] are now deleted. This is unfair and perhaps you can help get this straight and give Wikipedia a better name for what it stand for. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

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

Lawn gnomes

I left you a response at Garden Gnome Liberationists. The concerns you raised are very valid, and are the same concerns I had when I first saw the article.... unfortunately, the article has actually been cleaned up a good deal (although it still needs further cleanup), and you may have just had the bad luck of seeing a version right after the article creator disruptively reverted all the changes. I have since reverted back to the most recent revision. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rolando Gomez

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rolando Gomez. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--72.191.15.133 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DGG, Your comment was impressive and well argued. You edit conflicted with me, and I was addressing more deeply some of the points you raised about COI and not participating. Rolando Gomez needs to be strongly encouraged not to edit the article if it gets restored, and probably get an account to allow communication to be fluid. I am happy that I am not alone in this line of reasoning of both not liking Rolando's actions as an editor, and being upset with COI, and nevertheless seeing that the guy meets notability, which is binary. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't count on binary. There are actually proposals afoot to have a higher standard of notability for biographies of living people, a trend which ought to be resisted in interest of encyclopedic coverage. There is already a view which some people actually accept, of there being a "borderline-notable" category for living people, where the subjects opinion whether or not to keep the article will be decisive--a practice I think totally destructive of NPOV--it will inevitably lead to thousands of biographies being unadulterated praise, the single step most productive of spam that we could take. DGG (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing too much of the controversy, I do agree with you that NPOV requires that we do not have arbitrary opinions on notability, but set standards. Where are these discussions being had? Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As usual, discussion is dispersed and chaotic, but all real proposals will be at least mentioned at the talk p. for the BLP policy, DGG (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with you that allowing the subject to veto the existence of an article about themselves (or indeed the inclusion of any one fact) would be mindbogglingly destructive to our coverage of living persons (and topics)! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not Gomez. This IP address is shared by three people and he has used the IP. I do know him, believe in him, and personally know what he's accomplished. I will stay out of the deletion review. I have learned a lot about this process and only hoped people would be fair. So far I see that in Cerejota, DGG and a few others. I do believe Bali ultimate should be told to be more appropriate as calling someone a liar, in the AfD discussion, is uncalled for. I also have responded to Ryūlóng on my talk page since he initiated the conversation. I must say, I wanted to reply on his talk page and find it appalling that it's protected. I might add, someone has removed the "notable alumni" listing of Gomez off the University of Texas San Antonio page here on Wiki. To clarify, Gomez was listed on that page by the University, not by him or I. I did however change the link it was pointing to, only after the Gomez article was deleted in the Wiki 2nd AfD closure, so the link would point to something credible instead of a non-existent page. But complete deletion from a University where he had lunch with the president of the school and where Gomez was summa cum laude, is uncalled for and shows how underhanded some editors/admin can be since the topic of Gomez listed by the University was brought up in the AfD. I thank you both for your thoughts, advice and you should both be mentors here on Wikipedia. Thanks. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks. But I do need to clarify that we have a standard that we do not list as notable alumni people without wp articles, or those who do not obviously qualify (e.g. members of legislatures, winners of major prizes). You will understand that without this, we would have endless disputes at every college article. Summa cum laude or having lunch with the president, or any internal school designation, is not even conceivably among those obvious qualifications. Whom the school lists as notable is its own business--that's why they maintain their own website. I encourage you however to try the article again when there is something unmistakably notable, such as a major national level award or an article about him in a major recognized source. But try it in user space first, and ask for adice before inserting. Another rejection will not help matters.DGG (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I do want to note another thing, Bali unlimited obviously is doing everything to sabotage this article, he just practically wiped-out all the sources on the Jerry Avenaim page that admin Ryūlóng stated in the Gomez deletion review, "...Avenaim has 12 independent sources, none of which are his personal website. If we can get the same for Gomez, then by all means his article should be restored, if not at least rewritten from scratch...." Just FYI, as Bali unlimited is an editor who has gone after anything that will support the Gomez review discussion for deletion. This truly shows his character on this issue. Thanks again. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolando, my friend! So glad to see you're sticking to your vow to show class and not attack me. You may not like being called a "liar" but you've, er, "mischaracterized" my efforts again (at the Avenheim article.) I did not "wipe-out" a single, solitary, reliable source. I invite this poor fellow DGG to look at the diffs if he cares [[7]] and judge for himself. As for you, Ip, and your amusing claims of not being rolando, there's always this diff from your canvassing: [[8]]. I apologize for further cluttering your talk page DGG, but i don't like having my name taken in vain.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. If you do care to take a look at my work on Avenheim's article (which i think does not merit deletion; he seems to be far more successful and well known than rolando) the diff i showed cuts across about 12 intermediate edits of my own; much of what was cut ended up on that talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you two guys have against each other, but kindly take this elsewhere; we have not the least interest in whom you might be in reality. Wikipedia articles are judged independently, and I suggest you concentrate of the specifics of each, in the appropriate place, which is not here. I do want to remind you both as a final comment that it is not the role of Wikipedia to make judgements of artistic quality, but to report verifiable information about people and things that are appropriate to be included in an encyclopedia--our purpose is not to give publicity to the deserving: that is the purpose of critics, not the much duller writers of encyclopedias.. We are therefore concerned with what we find in third party published reliable sources, and nothing more. Inclusion here should not be taken to have a direct relationship to intrinsic merit. DGG (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My A1/G1 reviews

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

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

South African WUGs

Thanks for the feedback on South African wireless user groups. I am going to wait for the AfD process to complete, then expand the article, mainly adding more about rural community networks, which could have great potential in other parts of the region. Yes, the OLPC devices support WiFi and mesh networking, so they can be used as relay devices in a wireless network. They are worth a mention in the article. But for people who have to buy their own, the "mesh potato" may have more promise. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly categories

Hi DGG, I was hoping you would comment on my response to your alternate proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_1#Scholars. I suspect we may continue to differ somewhat on Etruscan & Pre-Columbian, but I think you may well agree with me regarding Category:Classical scholars. So please take a look if you can find the time. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I consider not to see any real ambiguity with my wording. DGG (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ceoltronic and Infopulse

You may be right with Ceoltronic, and I'll restore that one; but Infopulse? "Our company constantly researches new technologies in order to advance the development practices and remains innovative and reliable outsourcing software development partner in Ukraine." That's purest spam. BTW: thanks for your consistent courtesy, even where we disagree. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Had you noticed that User:Antonsokolovsky, the s.p.a. who created Infopulse is a senior project manager at Infopulse since 1999? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

RE: your post on the Lipstick prophets talk Thank you for the input. I believe that I have revised the article to be well written & wiki appropriate now. I left a reply comment on the talk page there as well.Tallulah13 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

further comment there about how to give the sources. DGG (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Buddhist Centre Copenhagen" article

Thanks for your help in sorting out the advertising speak from this article. Can i suggest that the article be renamed to something like "Diamond Way Buddhist centre of Copenhagen"? The current title could easily lead it to be confused with any of the many other Buddhist centres that exist in the city, whereas the centre the article is about in fact belongs to the Diamond Way sect started by Ole Nydahl in the 70's.

Thanks again for your help. Roy Ward (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

please discuss on the talk page of the article: i see from the web site the official name is "Buddhistisk Center København" [9], and we generally make use of what ever name the organization itself does. If there are other such centers, they could have articles or a page could be used to list them, but the present article is already clear it refers to this particular sect. feel free to edit it to make it even clearer. DGG (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David^WS _(contribs) 19:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues I've come across

I wonder what your take is on the following unrelated controversies I've come across.

• 1) This [10] proposed ban.
• 2) This article [11] and this article [12], especially the Steven Goldberg section with book cover images. I suppose the article on the other book is similar.

If you have the time and the interest I'm curious on your thoughts, if not no worries. I know you're in high demand, and I thank you for your substantial contributions to Wikipedia and your willingness to offer guidance and informed discussion on policies and approaches to sometimes difficult subjects. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I think the presence of significant principled dissent helps WP, and KW's criticism, while only occasionally right, is of benefit to the encyclopedia--if only because of the continual need to remind ourselves on how to answer it. Thanks for pointing me to the discussion.
2. For the Patriarchy article, the section is entirely inappropriate and should simply be deleted. Even were there full proof that he is universally considered the most important and authoritative author of the subject, he should be discussed along with other authors. For the article on the book, I do not think the extended discussion of content on a chapter by chapter basis is justified, and I think the discussion a remarkable failure of NPOV. You missed an even morebiased article, the one on his other book, Why Men Rule. The first step towards improvement will be to look for current discussion of his views to see his overall impact on the subject as viewed in perspective. DGG (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth I too think that Kmweber should NOT be banned or indefinitely blocked. He has done a number of more productive/constructive things for our project than some of those calling for his head have and while I certainly have not always agreed with him, he has actually made many a good and valid point, especially in deletion discussions. I find a good deal of those who call him disruptive really disagree with him and somehow if you simply disagree with some you are automatically labelled "disruptive", which is odd given that in many of these debates, there is not always a "right" or "wrong" not matter how much some are convinced of their own viewpoint, rather just subjective opinions of the various arguers. The other thing is people could easily ignore him if they really do not like him as other than commenting on things it is not as if he was mass nominating articles for deletion in a pointed manner (as far as I am aware) or something. People should be able to comment and voice their concerns in discussions even if of questionable logic without being bullied. Merely stating viewpoints that some disagree with is relatively harmless as far as things go. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

there is a level of dissent which does amount to harassment; there was apparently rather aggressive behavior at IRC. I have amy own solution to the problem of IRC, and that is to avoid using it. DGG (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there seem to be some legitimate issues with the editor's behavior, but the way the ban was proposed also seems troubling and inappropriate (almost to the point of irony). Too many opposes? Anyway, the issue seems to have been resolved for the moment. Thanks to you both for your thoughts and interest. Nobody, I hope you keep your head down a bit and your comments short and to the point. You seem to have a target on your back. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome and yes, I know some are fixated on me... Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Gropius Ensemble

? It was Thingg, not I, who deleted that one recently. (And you forgot to sign yer post to my talk page.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC) --right. And sorry. The afd close mistakenly said you. [13], & I didn't check the history. DGG (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Cosmos Pink Shock

The article only stated it was a "young girl" video project (anime rather than manga - at least that is what I get after translation) of which there are thousands. Infoboxes are merely sidebars. No matter how much info they contain, they can't survive on their own; they are supposed to support text. That said, it had more issues. Lack of content itself and no claims of notability (something with one episode needs a severe claim). If someone makes a convincing case it should be kept and can be improved, I'd be happy to undelete, but its current state is deleteable in my interpretation of policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Being bold

Hi DGG. In your AfD comment here, and in four or five other discussions, you put your entire comment in bold type. I'm guessing that it probably is a typo, but I didn't want to unilaterally change it just in case. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks -- but please feel free to fix that or any other typo mistake of mine you may ever see anywhere. I never mean to do an entire !vote in bold or italics, but I sometimes go too fast to check. So many afds, so little time. DGG (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rayse Tiger

I think the Rayse Tiger article is too good to delete. --Tamás Kádár (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC) "If you want it kept as an independent article, find and add some good 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online that talk about it--preferably not blogs, but anything will help. . It doesn't really have a chance otherwise, though I hope we might just manage to keep some of the content in a combined article. For general information about what's needed to make a sustainable article, se our guide to writing Wikipedia articles.DGG (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring !votes

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

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

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

Corps

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

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

Prod removal from Jorj X. McKie

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

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

AfD nomination of Google Browser Sync

An article that you have been involved in editing, Google Browser Sync, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Browser Sync. Thank you. Jmundo (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Multi-generational Ponzi scheme

It is my understanding that you have to use the "Holdon" tag on any new page you create to keep it from being deleted. Somehow this works regardless of weather the page has been tagged for deletion or not. Eyreland (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I note Eyreland is mistaken here as 'holdon' is actually used following a 'prod'. That page has been speedied by me anyway. (see its talkpage for notes) --AlisonW (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Alison, I think you meant "speedy", not "prod". The tag that would have been appropriate for Eyreland's intended purpose is "underconstruction" DGG (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Walkley

I was surprised when you called the Quarterly Essays "just pamphlets" ([14]) and notice that at least one has won a Walkley Award: Last Drinks: The Impact of the Northern Territory Intervention. Johnfos (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Speculation?

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

Wikipedia:SOGOFIXITYOURSELFINSTEADOFDELETING

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

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

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

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

Septimus Heap (character)

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

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

List of social enterprises

This article has been nominated for delete. Please note that at no time the question was whether the links were notable. Guidelines for stand alone lists are not met. Hence the nomination.

Since you had contested the PROD earlier, I thought you would like to provide inputs at its Articles for Discussion entry. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ellinejerk

You just prodded one of her articles. There seems to possibly be a bigger problem--I just deleted two as apparent vandalism, because they were part of a set on a station where she'd copied the contents from another WP article on another station, but if so, there are bigger problems involving past contributions also. What's your sense of it? DGG (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that she's either trying to cause a nuisance by creating a walled garden about some TV station she just made up, or she's trying to create an article about a station that does exist, using the other article as a starting point. I'm leaning towards the former from looking at her contributions, but I'm slower (lately) to speedy stuff like that as vandalism (call it excessive AGF if you like). I've left her a message. If she does continue, I'd support deleting the articles as nonsense vandalism and consider blocking her. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

These articles on the non-existant NX network are just rebadged articles from other networks, while I accept they may not be copy-vio given Wikipedia's copy status, they are nonsense and I will request sd on this groundsPorturology (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

2 qys, tho: first, hoaxes can only be speedied if they are patently nonsense--it has to be clear on the face of it that its impossible. Second, what about that editor's other contributions? The articles that started this we will get rid of, bu tthe problem is also the other stuff which this now casts doubt upon. DGG (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at the other articles and I can't find anything quite so blatant but i will continue to check on the rosary hour. A major American sports network that has as its main sport, Australian Rules Football! Not even someone from Melbourne would believe that and therefore it should be considered nonsense Porturology (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You were quite right - most of the edits are vandalism and I have reversed them. I notice that Ellinejerk is thought to be a glovepuppet of a banned user so I will leave to you as an administrator to sort out that mess Porturology (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems there are some additional problems-- see User talk:124.105.9.3 and the extensive contributions. A few other people seem to be watching also. I lack the knowledge to check the edits effectively, but I will deal with blocking the accounts. If you think there are particularly susceptible pages, please let me know, and I can protect or semi-protect for a while. The edits which seem the trickiest to spot are the (year) in television ones--some of the problematic ones still seem to be present. Maybe it would help to search for the name of the fictional station in the encyclopedia text? DGG (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This user is just creating hoax articles and adding dubious information to other existing articles. A good example is the Family Rosary Crusade (TV program) article. He/she added several nonsense info from time to time as you can see on this example. Also, this user (both his/her first user name, User:Ellinesuperstar and this IP address: 124.105.9.3) had been blocked several times. I have been watching this user since June and so far almost all of his/her edits can be justified as vandalism. -danngarcia (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Septimus Heap

Hi, i have created the Septimus Heap (character) page at User:Legolas2186/Septimus Heap (character). Can you please take a look at it? "Legolas" (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey Reviews

Hey DGG, With your permission, I'd like to move your comments about the CSD survey's to their respective talk pages.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do!. The only reason I put them where I did is that someone else did so before me. DGG (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sean Mercer

Thanks for adding the merge tag to the Sean Mercer page. I have NO IDEA why I prodded instead of proposing a merge - I've even started creating a infobox for following the merge - I obviously didn't put two and two together... [ cycle~ ] (talk), 13:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Review needed

I see you haven't yet reviewed the User:Legolas2186/Septimus Heap (character) page and it is pending a review. Please do that immediately as i don't want a page in my user space and we have to move it. "Legolas" (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is likely to go better if you decrease the amount of discussion of the plot further. And cite the discussion of the traits to particular scenes where they are exhibited. DGG (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, i have changed them. Can you please take a look? If it is fine can you move it to Septimus Heap (character)? Or let me know. "Legolas" (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Will check tomorrow. DGG (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Conduct Unbecoming (Law & Order episode)

A comment if I may. I believe in giving new articles a chance ... that's how Wikipedia grows and improves. However, I see too many editors using the {{underconstruction}} tag on very questionable new articles, just to keep the article from being deleted. That is not what the tag is intended for; it's to coordinate editing for an existing article that has been around for awhile while someone is improving it. So ... as I am new page patrolling, if I see a new article with the tag that would otherwise be a good speedy delete candidate, I tag it for SD. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The tag for coordinating editring is {{inprocess}}. The underconstruction tag only works for 2 weeks in any case--after that you can nominate the article. Generally, it shouldn't be used unless there is some content--I remove it from blank articles that have been there more than a few minutes. the point is that unless it is impossible for the article to be acceptable on the basis of what is already there, nothing at all should be deleted for lack of context or content, or for not indicating notability, within the first few minutes. If article reads "John is a cute boy in my class", you are right there is no need to wait for anything further. If it reads "John Smith is a movie director" then it is helpful to see the next sentence or two. DGG (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holiday season

Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy Holidays David. Enjoy the rest of 2008 and I hope all of your celebrations are good ones. I look forward to getting more of your help in 2009! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 02:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas. Maybe this year Santa will bring you a bigger archive so you can cut this massive talk page down to size. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help on SMK Semera!--Mark Chung (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back!

This is Linda Mancia, the Linda Mancia whose articles were deleted. I left Wikipedia because of some rudeness caused by certain members of the Wikicommunity, but now I'm back! I'm sorry that you didn't find any sources about Tyranta or Cheryl, but our website is down, and its still down. I have read a few references to Tyranta in papers (I would know, I am the editor) and magazine reviews and book club reviews online and would be happy to show you some links. But this is not a work my friends and I are working on; it is a story told by an author that has worked hard to make her living and has faced the worst trials that women can face today. Cheryl is an American author that was born and lives in Montana, so I don't understand why nothing would show up. Our website has links to Google, but at the moment it is down, so be patient. The publication company was Avon Books, but a few of her earlier works were published by HarperCollins, though she switched because of deadline issues and rates. More info can be found on our site, so wait, please!

Regards, Linda Mancia (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Review of Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen

Season's Greetings. Thank you for your attention to these articles. I can see how they are both much improved by your edits. Is there anything else you would recommend that I do to improve these articles at this point? William Meyer (talk) 21:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

I found this[15] -- relating somewhat to my own personal biases -- amusing, and thought I might as well share it (but sorry about any rough spots in the humor). Be well. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus. 12:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again

Hello,

You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This was originally raised in October 2008. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.

This link is to the new request for comment on the reliable sources notice board. (You may have to scroll down to see it)

Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)

Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven Institute

I have followed your suggestions for the Haven Institute article. My comments are on the Discussion Page for this article. When you have time, please look to see if this article can be improved more. Please note the trailer on the Haven article regarding "Category:Items to be merged" and "Category:Articles to be merged{{#if:"... I think it is a partially removed tag ... but I have left it, not knowing if it should be there or not. Should this be there? Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Quays

Don't worry with your false accusations you are not missing anything. These quays never had pages and so have never had histories. I don't think it would be possible to lose the histories in such a way anyway. I redirected all the quays that feature on my maps of Dublin so that anyone who types them in will get to the right place. If someone wants to create individual pages they are still able to but they should be reasonable and detailed ones that won't have any reason to be deleted. Your talk page is huge. --Balloholic (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not think you should have read my question on your talk page as an accusation. Now that you have explained, yes, what you are doing will, as you say, facilitate the making of the appropriate articles for every quay. I am not sure we usually create preemptive redirects of this sort--it would turn us into a gazetteer to have a redirect from every street on a city map. To make one from streets where there ought to be articles, though, makes good sense. DGG (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive renaming of Irish streets

I noticed you comments on several of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland pages. Did you notice this disruptive renaming by Balloholic who seems intent on deleting many Dublin street stubs? Renaming to the false name Traa Street is highly improper and the even editor admits it is disruptive. Can you please review this edit and deal with appropriately? Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems another editor is dealing with this adequately for the time being--I will check those he might have missed. My impression is that the misspelling above is just a typo, not an attempt to obscure the name. The reversions of X Street, Dublin to X Street in general I also consider to probably be be in good faith--though it was clearly not the right thing to do, as these common names should be qualified to prevent confusion. What could be disruptive in my opinion is the entire concentrated deletion effort. But it is not appropriate for me to be the admin to try to stop it, because of my participation at the Afds. DGG (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit I was actually referring to renamed the article incorrectly and the edit summary clearly indicated is was intended as disruption and was not just a spelling mistake, but, as you say, someone else dealt with it and it looks like closing as a keep. This whole, Dublin streets, deletion effort seems to be closing mainly against the nominator. Thanks anyway. ww2censor (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is well to avoid intensifying already difficult situations. If there is a reasonable interpretation, I proceed on that basis. My comments about the merit of these deletions are of the various afd pages. DGG (talk) 20:57, 26

I am aware that my efforts to improve the imbalance of Dublin vs the rest of Ireland is being discussed and watch as you talk in what you think is secret. I find it very funny but here I will interrupt to have my say. That was a typing error on my behalf brought about when I thought someone who has sockpuppet written all over their page was moving around pages that were being discussed. I'm very sorry if it has come to so much confusion as to be discussed like this in secret. The "entire concentrated deletion effort" is an attempt to address the issue at hand - that is that everyone is free to create street after street and there is nothing adequate to say about these streets other than say where they are. This is not closing mainly against me - I've deleted some very bad efforts before all of you came along and took over and the rest at least is provoking a healthy discussion and at least they are asserting their right for being there in the face of the toughest and most gruelling opposition from me. Somebody has to do it. I'm keeping an eye on all of you and am expecially aware now of the one who has gone behind my back who I am already highly suspicious of having a conflict of interest. That will be all. --Balloholic (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC) December 2008 (UTC)

So far from being secret, I write on this page with the knowledge that it might be read by a number of people--and I would hope anyone posting here would have the sense to realize as much also. DGG (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I believe that Balloholic's edit summary referred to me, not himself, based on a misunderstanding of what I was doing. Yes, my user page states that I'm a sock puppet; I am, this is being transparent about it. As DGG comments, adding a qualifier to common names is appropriate. Part of my deletionist streak derives from a namespace concern; we have a single namespace for all articles and naïve editors often create articles at inappropriate names. In the case of topics of questionable notability, this is creating work for editors taking a project-wide view. Moving an article is easy enough, but if there are many links to it, as time will allow, it gets messier. It's best to do such moves as soon as they are noted. And, of course, moving those that are not appropriate for inclusion to the trash basket is best ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

deletion process of an article

What is the proper procedure for having an article removed from Wikipedia by the originating authors. We realize our article does not meet the Wikipedia standards and we agree with the editors that it should be speedily deleted. Stretch call (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To see the surveys, go to this page. I'm hoping to get a good mix of people to participate in the surveys---people who agree with my interpretation of CSD and people who have different views. I'll post the results in a couple of weeks after getting a decent return.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

you forgot to say where. DGG (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, looks like I forgot to include the link, I've added it now in case somebody sees if from here.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions declined

yes it was a bit hasty, and they were tagged incorrectly, replaced a number with db-bio: some are clearly not notable, none (apart from the cricket player) are controversial, can you point to the bios that you would contest? Thanks Semitransgenic (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the breakdown, points taken, posted this elsewhere:

OK, here no cites, WP:ENG sources. here tagged a year ago for referencing issues, still uncited, unlinked URL splashed in the main body of text, i don't see the value of this stub, you say he did such and such, therefore notable, but this assertion is not supported by WP:V. This simply helps to prove the feeling I have that inclusionism is the dominant policy on wikipedia, any useless information, even if it fails to adhere to the policy guidelines on NPV OR & V, is admissible. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

that said, will read guide thoroughly before delete tagging again, AFD just seems contrived and time consuming, SD is quick and easy. cheers. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep track of the difference between speedy deletion and deletion via AfD. Some of those articles may not hold at AfD. The standard for passing AfD is actually being notable, the standard for passing speedy is very much less, some indication of possibly being notable. . Kevin Little is an example--it might well be deleted at AfD, most articles on defeated candidates are; I think if they're from major parties in national elections they should be kept, but the consensus does not usually agree with me. But read WP:ENG again--English sources are preferred when available, but are absolutely not necessary--any language at all is sufficient. One of its references is an article in the print national encyclopedia (, and therefore the article will certainly will pass AfD--that is considered a reliable demonstration of notability. If you can't read Cyrillic alphabets, don't be careful with articles that depend on Cyrillic references. (Not that I can actually read Bulgarian, but I can sound it out & recognize the word for Encyclopedia)

If you don't want to bother with AfD, consider PROD, but it only works if nobody is likely to remove the tag, which even the author can do.

As for inclusionism, we delete about half of the 2000 articles submitted every day, most of them by speedy deletion--I spotted these and so did other admins , while removing our share of that. Think of it as removing the worst junk first. DGG (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the pointers, I will give the deletion related guidelines a good read before trying anything like this again, sorry for wasting time!! : ) Semitransgenic (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice!

Thank you for your advice here. You are most welcome to help out. The article is in my user space here. --Bensin (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's you who needs to be doing the work on this; I'll look at what you've done when you think it's ready.. DGG (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparison between Roman and Chinese Empires.

My plan for revamping the article is to use a direct comparison when i can find a good source, e.g., Prof.shiedel's book. But when such a source is not available, I will list information about the two empires without comparing them, as is in several sections currently. I look forward to working with you. I have edited the article to (What i believe) eliminate any direct comparisons that were not sourced by a source comparing the subject; Can you help me go through the article and show me parts that you believe to be OR? thank you. Since I have yet to consult the sources of direct comparison, I will not endeauver to a direct comparison in any section besides the language section(sourced). Teeninvestor (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

what you suggest is possible, but you have to make sure the information is comparable--even such things as population are hard to specify unambiguously. I'll take a look in a day or two--but first, re-read the material on that key web site. I am not proposing to rewrite it with you, just give advice. DGG (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig Carl Christian Koch

You might want to take another look at the afd, and redo your WorldCat search. Don't count on full names being used there. DGG (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, and also checked other sources. As you probably noticed, I changed my vote to a keep. Thanks.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Yurken (talk • contribs)

Egyptian Yoga

If you know someone who might be familiar with this subject or wouldn't mind having a look I would appreciate it. I nominated the article for deletion, but the creator has been working hard on improving it. I'm still concerned the sources seem to be what's being promoted and the notability of the subject itself hasn't been established with good sources. It almost seems more like an article about the author of the sources than Egyptian Yoga. I'd be happy to have a neutral perspective. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

when I have so little interest I cannot force myself to actually read the article, I think it wiser not to comment. DGG (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello DGG... can you help me?

Hello DGG, I'm fairly new to this process, and if this is not the right place to request help, just ignore and I'm sorry. I'm part of a small team that has just spent over seven years developing what we think is the first-ever industry classification system of the global economy, and we thought it was notable. (Sometimes I wonder how Samuel Johnson felt writing the first dictionary - and if he lived today, at what point would Wikipedia allow him to describe his work, or would he have to wait a few years for James Boswell to logon?) Anyway, thanks for your comment a week ago to keep the article. Being new, I thought that because you are an administrator that sounded like a final decision. But if you look again at Ecompetitors it looks like they want to take it down. Thanks Porterfan1 (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oxford awarded him an honorary degree for it even before the date of publication, so it could be included on the title page. I don't see anything of the sort for you. DGG (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Philosophers

Hello DGG first Happy New Year to you and yours. Would you mind stopping over to the discussion page at Nazi Philosophers and give your thoughts. Appreciate any input. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

yes indeed. DGG (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Not the answer I wanted, but one I will respect. It pushes the consensus your way :-). Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I avoided looking for who said what-- as I generally do. I don;t always succeed, but this is the first I've realised your position. I think of this as an extension of assigning labels in general to people--that should not be done if there is any dispute. If living, its problematic BLP; if dead, it still has problems with the inherent POV/OR in trying to sum up complicated situations in a single word. DGG (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why I asked you to look it over, I know you do not take sides based on who says what. The labeling was a concern, however if the piece is referenced and cited, do we just look at only what we call or label as Nazi philosophers, or do we take into account individuals who have furthered the cause through written or spoken words, though not considered in the true sense of the word Nazi philosophers, but rather informed intellectuals? Likewise do we also include or exclude actions, be they the actual support through service and awards by and to the Nazi regime, and I note here feverate support versus being conscripted into support of the movement or do we say they those individuals were only doing their duty and had not advanced the movement through their own willing actions? Likewise do we consider those individuals exempt from the label Nazi because it happened in Belgium - Finland - Belgium - Poland or even in the UK and the United States, because they were not considered Nazi, in that they were not members of the party, but in their own right fascists, which is just the foundation of Nazism? Some times our actions must be labeled and we must carry the weight of that label, be it good or bad. However, I do appreciate your opinion and as I said will abide with consensus. Have a great holiday. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My drive-by comment: Nazi Philosophers? The word Nazi, when seen in any broad context, is so (understandably) over-used as a metonym for evil as to have lost any other meaning and as has been noted on the article talk page, the word philosopher is also rather dodgy. I've never seen any reliable, meaningful secondary support for this term. My take on the article title is that it's hopelessly misleading and open to mistaken content and original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, what term doe you suggest we should use when we are referring to the actual Nazis, 1920s-45 and unrepentant survivors? We can's say "German Nazis," because not all were German, "supporters of Hitler" is a much broader term, not all were "members of the Nazi party," and not all members were actually devoted ideological supporters . DGG (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd call them Nazis, however, I think there is support for the notion that Nazism was mostly a nationalistic, Germanic volkish, mystical and opportunistic political scam, rather than a thoroughly reasoned philosophy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, what are your thoughts on the Treaty of Versailles as the bases for the growth of Nazism? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Another scam. No Versailles, no Berghof. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts Gwen – DGG I apologize for using your page for this discussion, but wanted to delve deeper into Gwen’s positions. Thanks to both of you and Happy New Year. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about calling it a scam, but there was certainly opportunism at work and the Nazi leaders incorporated elements of various nationalistic and populist ideologies to build the movement. As it is an amalgam of ideologies, and the editors working on article want broad inclusion, two of us have supported the title "Nazi ideologues". Any thoughts on this title or a good alternative? I have no problem with Nazi philosophers as a title, but I think an article with that title has to be about Nazi philosophers, not other people whose ideologies were co-opted or who weren't philosophers. Ideologues gives some broader play. The article should still be driven by what good sources say, but a version of Charles Darwin's ideas were certainly prominent in the Nazi movement. Whether it's appropriate to include him under that title, I'm not sure. But I think it would be more appropriate than under the title Nazi philosopher. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think calling Darwin a Nazi ideologue would be way beyond the pale. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call him a Nazi ideologue either, but certainly "Darwinism" was appropriated (misappropriated?) as an intellectual foundation for some of the tenets of Nazism. So discussion of how his ideologies were used (misused?) seems like it might be appropriate in that context. Again, I think the sources have to dictate how the subject is covered. I put the whole article up for deletion, because it struck me as a mess in the making prone to original research. But it is an interesting and widely covered subject. It seems to me the broadened article might be better dealt with in the existing nazism article, but I have to abide by consensus, which was keep. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, truth be told I don't think there's even a topic there. Either way, I can't think of a title for such a topic (perhaps because there is no such topic). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

well, while we are on the subject: 1/Hitler himself certainly often used the injustices of the WWI settlement as propaganda & I think there's evidence many Germans agreed with him about that. 2/Some elements of Nazi ideology certainly did use Darwin's ideas. This does not in the least mean Darwin can be called a Nazi ideologue. They used a wide scope of ideas from many sources; as Gwen said, they may not have been totally coherent. This illustrates exactly the problem with labelling. "Ideological sources of Nazi doctrine" is a plausible concept, but one has to be very careful about posthumous labelling. I think the same about Wagner, too--it's fair to call him a German nationalist, but German nationalism is not the same as Naziism.

Topic to be continued elsewhere, please. DGG (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian Forums

First, thanks for sticking up for the CF page back on the deletion review. It doesn't look like it's going to survive this round, BUT I think we can make it work if some reliable, third-party sources are found. I've put together a template of potential sources for this on my user page, if you're interested. What I need are some candidates, and then the article should be a go for re-launch. toll_booth (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not have the opportunity to work on this, but when you think you have enough sources, rewrite the article on a subpage and I will have a look at it. DGG (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Classical guitar pedagogy

When you deleted Classical guitar pedagogy, you missed deleting Talk:Classical guitar pedagogy. I'm also not convinced it fits the criteria for a speedy G7 delete, since while TheRationalGuitarist has been the principal editor for the past year, the article did exist prior to that and had edits from others, as I recall. As I mention on the talk page, I didn't touch the prodding of the article when I restored the content from TheRationalGuitarist's replacing it with a link to his blog since I didn't have an opinion on deleting the article as such, I just didn't feel it was appropriate for an editor to essentially blank an article because he wanted to take back his words. - Fordan (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I apparently missed the early history of the article and I have restored the whole. I'm removing the prod; it seems there is a decent version to revert to, and I will revert to it. Some of the later material may be usable, and I leave that to the editors interested. But my leaving the talk page was deliberate--i often do leave it for a while to serve as an explanation. I will explain there what I'm doing. DGG (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Dictionary of English Idioms

Alexander Dictionary of English Idioms has been tagged for speedy deletion as promotional. It may have been deleted by the time you read this message. I can't find references for it, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places. --Eastmain (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its a minor publication of their language school, unknown otherwise, and accordingly I've speedy deleted it as promotional for the school. DGG (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)