User talk:DGG/Archive 30 Jul. 2009

Oct08, Nov08, Dec08, Jan09, Mar09, Apr09 , May09 , Jun09 ..., Aug09, Sep09, Oct09, Nov09, , Dec09,

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

You objected, so go look at what I did with the consensus section and let me know what you think. If we can work forward from here rather than just reverting to what it was, I think that would be best. Gigs (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

it's difficult to express the necessary caveats concisely. I made a qualification to the citation index section, but I despair sometimes of any way to word exactly what is after all a matter of judgment, requiring both knowledge of a subject and experience with the literature. My preferred approach to the general matter is that there are relative degrees of reliability, not two classes. I'll look more. Let's think of it not as reversion, but successive approximation.DGG (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference New York Update: 3 weeks to go

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

World Policy Journal

Hey DGG, saw that you made some edits to the Journal's page and I was wondering if you could just read through these edits and let me know what you think! Thanks!

In the Fall of 2008, World Policy Journal celebrated its 25th anniversary under newly appointed editor David Andelman. The Journal acts as the flagship quarterly publication of the World Policy Institute, a non-partisan, progressive global think tank. By identifying and promoting new ideas and voices from countries around the world, World Policy Journal aims to educate the public and policy makers about the importance of an internationalist perspective; about the human impact of international policies; and about policy options rooted in equity, social justice, and broad civil society participation.

With readership among opinion leaders, media, and policy makers, World Policy Journal seeks to elevate the debate on critical shared global issues including migration, climate change, technology, economic development, human rights, and counter-terrorism. These issues require fresh thinking that transcends the traditional foreign-versus-domestic divide, is rooted in an embrace of shared self-interest, and brings to bear diverse global perspectives.

Its audience includes senior policy makers, members of the media, scholars, and other opinion leaders. In a 2002 article, The New York Times described World Policy Journal as "one of the voices of dissent in how the United States carries out the war on terror abroad." James F. Hoge Jr., the editor of Foreign Affairs, which publishes articles by more mainstream political figures, said, "The World Policy Journal has little of the money or reach of Foreign Affairs, its august rival uptown. But it has a place. It is a thoughtful journal.” He continued: "It makes an effort to get views that may not find a home in more established publications like ours."

In June 2008, World Policy Journal named veteran foreign correspondent, author and editor David A. Andelman as its fourth editor. Through a new blog, RSS feed, additional visual media, better use of archival content to impact current affairs debates, and cross-linking and content exchanges with a network of like-minded institutions around the world, The Journal is exploring better and easier ways to reach out to readers. A forthcoming grant from the MacArthur Foundation will support the upgrade and redesign of www.worldpolicy.org toward these ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pltom (talk • contribs) 20:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the material I removed or rewrote a day or two ago, because it was promotional. Let's go sentence by sentence. The name of the editor is already there. That it's the 25th anniversary in 08 is obvious from the date it started. That he's a new ed. is obvious fro the dates also. The journal's high aims are not encyclopedic content: what the journals has done that is notable is encyclopedic content. The 2nd paragraph is thus irrelevant promotional language. That it reaches scholars and opinion makes is normally just a promotional statement also, unless you have published statistical evidence from 3rd party sources that it does it particularly well-- that might be worth considering. . The NYT reference is already in the article. It's a good one. What Hoge said to the NYT is already in the article. It's a very good quote indeed, and few journals could have something as useful as that to cite. I highlighted it in the article at the top of a section. The way to get Adelman's experience discussed is to write an article on him. As editor of this journal, he's notable. That the journal has a blog and RSS feed is no longer the least distinctive, though I put the blog in as an external link, and could add the feed somewhere. That it has a grant is notable, when you have gotten it and it gets announced in some other published source than your journal.

There's some more material needed: the exact ref to the CRS article, and a list of all 9 of the notable articles it cites, with full bibliographic references for each of them. To show off your archive, there can & should be links to where each of them is on your site. That's factual, and much better than merely saying you have a good archive. Very few journals have such a sourced list--it provides useful & interesting information and can be used to support other articles also. And we need bio articles of the earlier editors also. All the bios should include that they were editors of this journal, and have a link to this article.

Presumably you have some experience in public relations or advertising. But the style that uis accepted there does not work in an encyclopedia. What you wrote is puffery: self-praise, and vague generalities, and lofty ambitions, full of adjectives, repeating the full name of the journal frequently, and with elegant sentences. Those all the hall-marks of bad writing for an encyclopedia. If readers see these, they'll recognize the style immediately and think, "oh, just another advertisement," which does not help you and greatly harms us. We shouldn't have the puffery, and we need plain factual informative writing. This is not a place to publicize your journal. It's a place to have information about it, because it's important. The information if presented plainly will show why it's important, This is a different medium. Learn to use it. And for further advice see our FAQ about businesses, other organisations, and articles like this. It was written mainly by Durova , who understands very well how to do these things here, and who taught me and many of us here a great deal about what makes effective encyclopedia articles about organizations. You can learn from her also. DGG (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the quick response and very helpful advise! I'll be sure to keep all this in mind when re-writing it. Again thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.253.186 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

List of authors ...

DGG. I'm sorry if my "lists are evil" opinion has rubbed you the wrong way. However I fail to see how this list is anything like the non-controversial and readily verified lists the encyclopedia does maintain. A very tiny minority of author/literature lists I can see include the type of politicized components this one does. The ones that do are direct in categorizing authors as part of an identifiable movement -- "ecofeminist" and "feminist" being the obvious examples I can find. This list is in reference to a politicized stance that does not have this amount of definition and is rather purposefully not identified with a movement of any kind -- simply those "opposing cults". What definition of "cult"? Which groups can accurately be included in the category? Is it if fair to imply a general opposition to all groups in the category even if the opposition is to a very specific group? In terms of the last question, if we start making notes about specifics as you suggest then we are consciously engaging in the kind WP:OR I am opposing because we are saying ... well Burroughs was opposed to Scientology but in our view Scientology is a cult hence this is included. Anyway, I hope you are not arguing only with my dumb general opinion about lists. As you correctly point out the AFD is about a specific list. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I also want to point out that I am going to disengage on the AfD page completely whether or not you respond there. I have a tendency to argue ad infinitum ... one of the many reasons I should just stay retired. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledged your changes at the AfD page. I recognize that this list is more problematic than most. The 2 articles I checked had sourced quotations for "anti-cult". We necessarily do OR every time we need to give a single defining phrase or characterization, and a great many list and category problems come from this--nationalities, religions, sexuality. But those lists and categories are useful nonetheless, and useful is a valid criterion for a list. (in general I agree that a lot of lame arguments come over just what defining phrase to use--e.g "pseudoscience". In defining anything contentious, in practice we necessarily use OR, because there are almost always multiple definitions available. so it's accepted that one can use OR to discuss and justify what article content should be, & on talk pages. NOR applies only to the content of articles. Even so, we cannot wholly avoid OR in writing such articles, even if we rely entirely on sourced quotations, because there is always the need to select whom to quote. And in discussion we use OR every time we discuss whether references for something are reliable, or give significant coverage. I'm not writing this out as a quarrel, but as an explanation of my view. DGG (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are a lot of gradations of OR going on all the time all over the encyclopedia and they are clearly necessary to get things done. Clearly we rely on our own abilities to interpret a variety of sources for a variety of reasons. However, as you allude to above, this becomes an issue when dealing with contentious subjects. In terms of the content of this particular list I have been maintaining for years that our most reliable sources are heavily weighted against the utility of the term "cult" when used in this capacity -- out there in culture it is inconsistently used, it is usually a pejorative, it has lost its initial sociological meaning, it is often associated with false and/or exaggerated attributes, etc. Even scholars who would like to rescue the term acknowledge what has become of it over the past few decades. From this perspective it is not a "useful" defining attribute for a list, and the most reliable sources on the topic tell us so. So why do we have a list like this one if it is based on such a shaky and biased category for inclusion? Because editors with an agenda like to WP:COATRACK whatever benefits their POV. "Cult" and NRM related editing here at Wikipedia is some of the worst all around - right up there with nationalist crankery. The unfortunate difference is in the value given to scholarship in these two arenas. "Neutral" editors and administrators supporting the "scholarly" perspective are usually respected as expressing the academic POV in nationalist skirmishes. Also, both real sides of the POV war are seen for what they are. In the NRM arena very little respect is given to anyone who supports a "scholarly" POV. "Cult critics" lump scholars who don't agree with them in with "group members", just as any nationalist would lump scholars who don't agree with them in with their political enemy. The difference is that in the NRM arena no one questions this logic. Two sides emerge (instead of three), and most scholarship ends up on the side of the fence that is most heavily identified with an obvious COI -- the adherent side. In the end it becomes completely impossible for the third voice to mediate a thing. In fact the third voice is hampered by the fact that while two POV sides are identified one is watched with much more suspicion than the other ... and this is the side scholarship is often associated with (the adherent side). In my humble view this arena of editing is perhaps one the most anti-intellectual we have. The encyclopedia should vigilantly defend its credibility against COI editing by NRM group members, but it needs to equally defend itself against their critics. When it doesn't we end up with lists like this one. Note: I am likewise writing this as an explanation of my views ... or at least providing some context for them.PelleSmith (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

socionics AN/I discussion

you may wish to comment on the newly created administrator's noticeboard incident discussion regarding the conduct of User:Tcaudilllg and User:Rmcnew in relation to the page socionics, located here. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhai Sahib Satpal Singh Khalsa

You had asked a question about the searches, on this AfD, I've responded, you can take a look at the AfD. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Socionics AfD

I noted your comment on ANI - I was actually going to close it as Keep but I thought that given the amount of friction on the AfD - there were actually quite a few Deletes and Merges - that N/C was probably a less contentious close :) It's undoubtedly notable, though. Black Kite 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User awards

Hi, David, I'm looking for some admin guidance on giving a user award. A few users went out of their way to be kind and helpful to me in a contretemps at AN this morning, and I wanted to express gratitude to them. Can I, as an individual user and of my own initiative, bestow one of the awards listed at Wikipedia:Personal user awards/General PUA on a user, or is there some kind of process? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

they are purely personal expressions. you may award anything to anyone, except the few people who have specified in advance they do not want them. DGG (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou! :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Seduction community

Hi David I was going to update the Seduction Community article with the new things happening within the seduction community but the page is protected due to excessive spamming. I don't know what the situation was with spamming but if you could unprotect it that would be great, though I understand it is necessary to keep the money-grabbing dirty spammers out of Wikipedia. Anyway the content I wanted to add dealt with Johnny Soporno and his radical theories on equality and relationships, and his unusual porn slant which he is introducing into pickup and the general ties to pornography that have been established recently (Hoobie of RSD's porn and pickup hybrid website is an example of this trend). Also Adam Lyons' new theories on social proof and their application to club game, as well as his curious formula for attraction that he has developed. I also wanted to add information about the trend of recording pickups on video and the online culture behind this. There is also the trend of hiring female trainers now pioneered largely by PUATraining. Anyway I hope you consider unprotecting the page, in case you feel it is better to keep it shut I'll have a read up on the {editprotected} thing. Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRosin (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If there are a few distinct blocks of text, then the thing to do is to put them on the talk page. If there are a number of little changes, then thats not as effective, obviously.

do you have reliable sources for all of these? It would be good to see them on the page there, because, not being part of the community, I can not otherwise tell what is or isn't spam. DGG (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Seduction community- added content to talk page for review

I've added some proposed content to the talk page of seduction community like you recommended. I've tried to find good references, it would be interesting to see what you think of the content. Thanks for reading and I happy 4th of July! DRosin (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CiterSquad

Up an running :) Jeepday (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Tayzen ban proposal

You may want to complete the second comment you made here. MER-C 05:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

replied by emailDGG (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on sourcing

Could you revisit your remarks on sourcing in Dave's recent RfA? You seem to confuse oversourcing, which you rightly complain about, with supplying sources that do not support the claims in the text. The latter is very bad. A footnote is like a seal of quality control. Many people do not read them, but note their existence and feel reassured of the quality and reliability and verifiability of what they are reading because of it. To supply notes that actually do not support the claim is very bad. Please rethink (perhaps I have misunderstood your point, of course). Peter Damian (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree; I'd come here to make a similar point. My issue isn't with unsourced statements – which are acceptable, providing a source can be provided if requested – but with adding sources which don't actually say what they're claimed to say, which is a completely different matter and IMO betrays a misunderstanding of core policies (much the same situation as the FlyingToaster situation a couple of months ago). – iridescent 10:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

changed to weak support, on the basis of relative inexperience. I will consider further. DGG (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have checked what I think the most serious accusation; see my comment there. [1]. DGG (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Anthony Wharton Gill ==

Can you take a second look at this AfD, as I believe you made a mistake. I have uncovered an additional 15 book (actually there were more, but I stopped) that talk about the subject. Only one is available for preview at Google, but that source spends about a page talking about one of his works - which I would think certainly isn't trivial coverage. Presumably, at least some of the other 14 also go into sufficient depth.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

very good work. DGG (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a somewhat related question. How does one go about properly determining the notability of "local" subjects? I mean I know there is no consensus and thus no guidelines on this, but what do you think? Specifically, one of the many things I've considered doing on Wikipedia is creating articles for subjects of historical importance to Columbus, Ohio. This would be based on information from several Columbus history books I have. Now, these wouldn't books mostly aren't very academic or discriminative in nature, so I 'd essentially have to decide what subjects they cover are Wikipedia notable and which aren't. Any advice you have would be appreciated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, this has never really been resolved. The following is my interpretation of current practice, best expressed by the essay at WP:LOCAL. There are three possible principles: 1. that the encyclopedia include only material that is likely to be of interest to those outside a local community 2.that the encyclopedia contain information about anything likely to be of interest beyond the subject's immediate neighbors or associates. 3. That the encyclopedia contain everything verifiable, and that there be some way of filtering out the ones of general interest. Rule 3 is currently rejected, and remains a possible future objective. The practical rule varies between 1. and 2., depending on topic. Most people go by the existence of Reliable sources, as with the General Notability Guideline, but in practice this is modified by saying that many local newspapers or genealogically based histories or small-scale local histories are not necessary discriminating in what the include, and are therefore not sufficient for notability. For example, a map is a secondary source, and one can find every 1867-1970 building in US cities on the Sanborn maps, and they are considered utterly reliable, but they do not prove notability because they include every building. (FWIW, G-maps map view is a secondary source, prepared by editing,but satellite view and street view are primary)for a large city such as Columbus, the key question in using the above rules 1. and 2. is to decide what is the local community. Is it the whole city, or the particular neighborhood? Opinions on this vary.

My own view is that the GNG should be deprecated to the status of a next-to last resort, (IAR is the last resort), in cases where there is no rational criteria, or for making exceptions to rules that would otherwise exclude. We should have fixed rules of what gets included and what doesn't, but be willing to make exceptions. This will limit the discussions to the cases where someone thinks we ought to make an exception, and others disagree. I would much rather spend my time elsewhere than at AfD, debating the same issues over and over again.

What specifically I think ought to be the fixed rules, is not necessarily relevant except in the topics for which I have some expertise. Locally: I originally was reluctant to admit the notability of all high schools, but now I do as a better choice than debating them. Branch libraries, fire stations, etc, should be combined into a general article on the department--and I think everyone agrees with that. Anyone who was ever a state representative from Cleveland justifies an article by present rules. Ditto for Mayor--I think city council might be borderline, though I'd support it.

As an interesting contrast, see the Citizendium guidelines for inclusion: [2] and [3].

I think you have identified the key specific factors: considering the books under the OCLC heading Columbus, Ohio--History [4]--many of them deal with specific small neighborhoods. I'd also look to see what is covered in general state histories, as an indication of notability. And there is one source that should solve a lot of problems: The AIA guide to Columbus (2008) [5]. Every building with an actual article in it should be notable.

What sort of articles had you in mind? (I see an Ohio wikiProject of which you are not yet a member, and a Cleveland Portal. I also see a Meetup in Columbus on July 10 that you have not yet signed up for. These are all good ways to coordinate work & exchange views on such things.--especially the meetups if you are in the area.) DGG (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the excellent advice. I will definitely take several of the steps you recommend when I am ready to start actually writing Ohio articles - at this point it is little more than something I've thought about, and article writing probably isn't imminent. That said, some things I would consider writing about include the Columbus Fire Department, Camp Willis, "The Old Post Office" (a building of historical significance that hasn't actually been a post office for like 50 years), the Desler Hotel, Scioto Valley Traction Company, etc. I am glad to see that we at least have a pretty good article about Olentangy Park, although pretty much unsourced - I might like to bring that one up to GA standard, as it is one of the most important historical aspects of the city. Same goes for LeVeque Tower - a very important aspect of the city with a decent article but no real sourcing. Probably the first thing I would do is re-focus or split Columbus Streetcar. The article is well written but has the completely wrong focus; that is on the rather insignificant proposal to bring back the street cars as a tourism gimmick rather than the notable 80 year history of actual streetcars. (Although the article probably wouldn't exists at all if not for the recent proposal, so I can't complain too much.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding conduct of User:Frei Hans

I have requested comment on the conduct of User:Frei Hans. As you have been involved in this dispute to some extent, I would appreciate it if you could comment. Papa November (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it necessary, as all I did was comment at the AfD. DGG (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Taz's redirects

Fair enough, some of them don't fall directly in that category I guess, but if you had the misfortune to be familiar with Mr Taz's "contributions" you'd appreciate the frustration felt by myself and other editors at his constant stream of nonsense. A couple of months ago I had about eighty (80) of his spurious and mischievous redirects speedily deleted. Please also take a look at his Talk page - not a pretty sight! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

all the more reason for using a definitive process like RfD where you will probably get a firm consensus--and get an opinion about a longer block, also, which will prevent further problems for a while. DGG (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Logical. It really is about time something was done about the situation. Don't think I don't appreciate your position; I was just trying to avoid unnecessary work for myself! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if you would know what the procedure is when a contributor deliberately recreates one of his previously deleted redirects? Mr Taz's redirect England Government was speedily deleted yesterday and another redirect took its place today. Furthermore this is not the first time this contributor has acted in this way (see his Talk Page for an earlier reprimand). I'm not an admin here on English wikipedia or I would take action myself. At the very least he should be warned not to do this again. Your advice and assistance, and hopefully action, would be appreciated. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

that particular one is implausible enough that I can protect against re-creation after I delete it, and I did. As for the others, RfD should deal with them. It is a lot surer enforcing a RfD decision than an individual administrator's speedy. First concentrate on the edits. If , after that, there are problems, then is the time to discuss the editor. DGG (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion started here. Your input would be appreciated. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

List of topics related to Black and African people

What do you make of this list article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

needs expansion and improvement.DGG (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DRV for James P Barker

Hi DGG

Now that the above DRV has been closed (and I've had a discussion with the closer, by the way--he's agreed to make some amendments to his closing statement), my thoughts have turned to your suggestion (on my talk page) that we should ask Arbcom to clarify their position. I agree, and I wonder whether you're familiar with the procedure?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

the closer in the end quite properly supported the key proposition, that BLP1E and similar reasons that do not amount to defamation is not a reason for speedy. I see no need to go to arb com to establish it. I think the close can even be be cited next time anyone challenges this. The close was essentially on the basis that the article would have been rejected anyway, which it would. Personally, i think it is generally wrong to close on that basis. ever. When an admin does a n erroneous speedy deletion, it should be reversed, and the correct procedure followed, or we'll never get admins to do it right. It essentially says: The criterion for speedy deletion is if an admin thinks it ought to be deleted, and he thinks people will not be willing to reverse him. This then leads to 1600 speedy deletion policies, meaning the effective overall policy is that what gets deleted depends on who gets hold first of the article. This is where the critical issue should be, but each time it is proposed, it is rejected by a immediate outcry from those admins who want to continue to have the liberty to do whatever they think they can get away with. DGG (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Comment

Hi, I wonder if you think this is a correct statement? Badagnani (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing. I said already what I think, that he has a general feeling that categories related to ethnicity are harmful. Myself, I consider such difference between people one of the things that gives needed variety and interest to the world, and can be a positive force in human affairs. I am not an homogenized american. Until I see my clear proofs that someone is dishonest, what can I do but assume that they are? My advice to you would be to lay off this line, which will not gather friends. Nobody wants to get into to that sort of fight. It would take much more extreme things to get me to support a crusade on this issue. DGG (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Kyle Brogan

This character is not a character from a book, or comic book, or TV series, or movie, or video game. So what article do you suggest moving him to? Edward321 (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks--I seem to have been going too fast--I changed what I said; DGG (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Youth United

Hi, I request you to please see to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_July_1 for Youth United, I have made some contribution to this discussion. Regards Maihunggogoi (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

this seems to be dealt with. DGG (talk)

Wiki-Conference New York panel

It would also be good if you folks could make some preparations among yourselves about how best to work together on the Quality and Governance panel. I'll be sending you all an e-mail on this soon.--Pharos (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I did notify Bucket. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Any idea what should be done with this user? He clearly needs a clue-bat, and mine's not awake right now. He just said "the malls in my opnion are not notable" and is clearly ignoring WP policy, and calling me a troll when I call him out on it. Please clue-bat accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This is uncalled for. He might be headed towards an incivility block. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps if the above user would take a little time to calm down and clear his head this would seem a lot more trivial then it does right now. I'm a little miffed so I'm not being as civil as I could be but the pointless and baseless accusation makes him look off kelter. I'm not saying that I'm not in the wrong as the community is showing that I am, just trying to explain my motives. Ten Pound hammer is either refusing or unable to understand it. The issue has been closed by admin and the Afd's were closed, I was wrong. Why continue trolling and stoking a fire? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest reading wp:stick? Thats why I said he was trolling.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, TPH, compared to a lot of things we have both seen that was pretty tepid. HB, everyone will simply simply judge by what you do in the future--the way all of us are judged, myself and TPH included. DGG (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

M S Ananth

I contested PROD on a one liner page and expanded. Can you take a look? I'd asked ThaddeusB to take a look and he suggested I check with you. I think the subject would pass WP:PROF #3 and #6, but I'm not sure about pages of academics, and was wondering if I might have missed something. Thx. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Director of any the established campuses of IIT, such as this one, is in my opinion equiv. to a university president of a first-rate research university, & therefore notable. (There is some question about the relative quality of the new ones, but certainly I would consider them as universities & their directors would fall under WP:PROF also. . Fellow, Indian National Academy of Engineering probably is also always notable under WP:PROF. DGG (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Filipino Hawaiian

probably notable, look for sources a/c WP:BEFORE[6]

Hey, DGG. I see you de-prodded my "notability, unsourced" explanation. Perhaps I should have phrased this as "Not notable in the primary literature, no sources found"? I prodded this after looking for information about it. The term is simply not in use by anyone. Whether or not "20.0% of the Hawaiian population claim having Filipino origin" is not in question. In any case, the creator of the article was indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of User:Usman Hashmi and has a history of creating problematic articles. For now, I've redirected the article to Filipino American. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Swaffham Prior railway station

Deeply appreciated. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Great work - I admit it was late and I was tired (and lazy) when I tagged it for speedy. I hope I have redeemed myself somewhat by further tweaking. – ukexpat (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

& thanks for the cleanup I too was working too fast to do it properly.DGG (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

) (Using {{Please see}})

Cleaning up List of topics related to Black and African people

We're cleaning this up.

What else needs to be done to it?

Please answer at Talk:List of topics related to Black and African people#Clean up.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

commented there. DGG (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

declined speedy

Stifle, I would unhesitatingly deleted File:Flag of Communist California.jpeg as vandalism -- clearly intended to do harm to the encyclopedia. Or possibly as G10, defamatory purpose.Perhaps you should take another look/ (and yes, I know the background at AN/I) DGG (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how this is vandalism. Being >4500 miles away may be a contributor to that, but I would say that speedy deletion only applies for vandalism when anyone in the world could tell it is inappropriate. I won't consider it wheel warring or otherwise inappropriate for you or anyone else to delete it. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

as is, I don't want to inflame the situation, and maybe by now I'm thinking of it just as a joke. Since it would be challenged though, if I do it i'll do it at IfD.~ DGG (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

William Parente

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Parente (2nd nomination). Thank you. Alchaenist (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC

AfD nomination of Juice Ortiz

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Magioladitis (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

ACPD pages created

I've created two initial pages for the ACPD:

• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development
• Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development/Forum

Please add them to your watchlist, stop by, and so forth. The latter page has a couple of logistical issues that we should discuss sooner rather than later, so I'd appreciate if you could find some time to comment on them.

Thanks! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Madhyamvyayoga

What is it? Character from Mahabharata? Play? Is there a different spelling? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lockwood's

Hi there, David. Can you please take a look at this article again? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lockwood_(author)) I've removed the "News and Media Appearances" section & added more references - as you suggested the last time. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. Jxc5 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It will stand, with some clean up-- more concise wording, no duplicate internal citations (I added a few suitable one's that you hadn't spoted). I will do it in stages. I notice that there is no reference supporting the following:

1. (most importantly, the phrase "Corporate Sustainability Strategist" -- can you suggest a less jargony one?
2. "consulting services to architectural firms such as Skidmore Owings and Merrill, real estate companies such as the Irvine Company, and international professional services firms such as PricewaterhouseCoopers. "
3. "advised clients on corporate sustainability and green real estate" -- the references are just articles he has written.

I am still not certain how to express the articles, and will probably do some sharp trimming there--the choice is between references, and a list. I also marked two statements of being the "first" or "only" work that need actual evidence. DGG (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments

Please note that I have only commented on your perspective having no counterbalance, and that it is reinforced by Casliber, not that there is anything inherently evil in your nomination or malignant about your intentions. I suspect that were I serving on such a committee, you would be eager to see someone more inclusionist on it to balance me out, and would be a bit taken aback if it me and say, Gavin Collins, were sitting on it together.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I understand that--but it still bothers me a little when people think this is my main concern, let alone my only concern, as they tend to, ever since it came up as an issue at my RfA. I never thought of inclusion/exclusion as even relevant to what the committee would be talking about. The suggested first topic is BLP, & I know my views here will be considerably at variance to the some of the others. I expect another one will be copyright, and I'd guess here also. There are a lot of other people there besides me and cas & I don't know the inclusionist/exclusionist views of most of them. I wouldn't be happy if the committee consisted only of you & Gavin but I wouldn't feel the same in a group of 30 other random good people?

I sympathise, since I suffer from the same problem. I'm the poster-boy anti-fiction deletionist, and people don't seem to note that I essentially don't edit fiction articles, and rarely comment at their AFDs anymore. Fair or not, it's our cross to bear. If it were the "BLP policy advisory group", I wouldn't have worried about it. It seems to me that the best way to do these things would be to throw together truly ad-hoc groups based on the topic at hand. That way, the composition of each group could be balanced against a particular topic. A balanced group over BLPs may or may not be a balanced group over copyrights.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well,I've noticed that you don't any more & from my point of view, I'd much rather discuss things with you than with some of those currently arguing that position. As for overall balance, someone might do an analysis. I suppose they will, if there ends up being an election. DGG (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with List of Nazi ideologues‎

This thing isn't getting any better. I see today we're going to have a fight over whether to include Charles Darwin. Personally, I think the thing needs to be deleted entirely, since it seems to be an exercise in guilt by association. If we can't manage that (and I suspect we won't) we need to come up with some name that isn't so flatly, uh, wrong, not to mention pejorative. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also Plato. We need rather for sensible people to get rid of the ownership of the article. There at the very least needs to be a change in title, to people whose ideas were used by the nazis. There could be a separate list of actual Nazi Ideologues. I'll start there. DGG (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem seems to be one particular established editor. DGG (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

So I see. I've suggested moving the most problematic material over to the section on origins, at the least. Mangoe (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Jxc5's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

County Route 676 (Hudson County, New Jersey)

Please have look at article and its discussion page. Am trying to build out list of county routes in Hudson County, New Jersey, not so much that that article is my concern but, it does give support to the greater Hudson County, New Jersey series. ThanksDjflem (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that I contested the PROD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

and it has been very sensible renamed as Union Turnpike (New Jersey) -- which usefully shows it is not a purely local road--there is considerable opposition to local roads--one cannot count on keeping them at AfD unless there is sufficient content and sourcing. Since many of the NJ roads will have been in place for long periods of time, there should be historical secondary sources available, for the construction, improvement, etc. Any article with enough sources of that sort will survive, as it should. For further suggestions , see the Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes a very good group of people--and you will probably want to join. If you;re in the NYC area, you;'ll meet some of them at our meetups. [[7]] DGG (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally a road named "turnpike" would have been an 1800s turnpike, but I'm not sure about this one. I know the Hackensack and Paterson Plank Roads were turnpikes, and this may have been built by one of them as a spur. --NE2 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Even 20th c. history would do. The original (and sometimes still-existing) paving of these roads were major projects in the early 20th century. Given the nature of Hudson county, there are bound to be some court cases in this connection. DGG (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried and failed to find more information, though I couldn't get the full text of several possibly useful laws: "An act to incorporate a company to extend the Paterson and Hamburgh Turnpike, to the Hudson river" (1816) and "An act to incorporate the Paterson and New York Plank Road Company" (1851). All I found is that it's old (19th century) and has also been called, perhaps informally, Paterson Turnpike. I hope someone does find more, because this could be an interesting little article. --NE2 01:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Man Who Would be Queen

I've added an update to your post in discussion and I'm interested in your participation in this article. I think you will find it fascinating.DarlieB (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

when it gets as convoluted as this, further argument of this sort is unhelpful. A posting like you made there manages to besmirch everybody on all sides. I am going to remove it & protect the talk p. for a few hours. I advise you to stop at this point. DGG (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Convoluted ? I gave you a question on the actual edits and not on a personal attacks. In fact I removed MY OWN TEXT that could be considered less than neutral as a concession . How is co-operating and trying to clean up my own issues with the posters convoluted ? YOU REVERTED IT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK AND HAD TO DO DIRECTLY WITH CONTENT ! So are you blocking me based on a personal bias ? It must be because there was nothing inflammitory or bias. Now I am going to revert that discussion edit and I'd appreciate an answer since it has to do with content .DarlieB (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not block you; I protected the talk page of the article to give people a chance to think before resuming attacks on each other. The protection ended a while ago, and the comments since have proven helpful. I'm about as neutral in this as you;re going to find, but if there are further problems there, I will ask someone else to take a look. DGG (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Just know that if you are truly neutral I would welcome your input if you get time , frankly this discussion needs a neutral moderator so I am in agreement with oversight . I think I am getting to emotional based on the constant attacks by Dr Baileys co-workers ( I only know this because individuals like Dr Cantor have said so and their collaborations are documented ). I've kept myself off the article for a few weeks because I knew I was losing my neutrality. I would rather press the issues of clarity , brevity and neutrality . I am trans so I have a perspective that does not fit in with Dr Baileys collaborators editing the article. WhatAmIDoing has been constantly trying to introduce a conspiracy theory concocted by Dr Alice Dreger that three prominent trans academics "conspired" to get Dr Bailey fired . Bailey himself said the controversy had nothing to do with him resigning as head of the department and no evidence has ever surfaced that this was any kind of a collaboration so why is that allowed at all ? If you had read the first edits they not only named them but, using Dregers paper as some odd verification though it was entirely an assumption on her part. This has been a long , long road to getting to any kind of neutrality in the article. It is better than last year but it is still bias.

One thing people constantly lose sight of is this is not Dr Baileys biography and so it cannot be a personal defense beyond the issues concerning the book. This is entirely about the book and it's theories. I personally do not even agree with the allegations of sexual misconduct against Bailey being brought up beyond the words of his subjects about misrepresentation of the individuals concerned . How that relates to the books. This article needs help badly .DarlieB (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael B Bearwalf

Hey DGG,

The reason I had added the A7 speedy deletion tag on the Michael B Bearwalf was because it just appears to be a few videos on Youtube and a Facebook page. Does A7 not apply because the article is about the fictional character and not the videos? I'm just trying to understand the policy better. Thanks for your help. [mad pierrot][t c] 07:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

actually you are right -- I carelessly didn't see that it appeared anywhere are all. People have written fiction and submitted it as Wikipedia articles., & we do therm by prod because there isn't enough to be worth a special rule. I would probably have done it right it if you had used the more specific tag "db-web" As is it clearly as hopelessly non-notable as one can get, I speedied it. DGG (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on merger of Bristol Indymedia with Independent Media Center

User:Simon Dodd has requested comment on the proposed merger. You are being informed as you participated in the recent AfD discussion. Discussion at Talk:Bristol Indymedia Jezhotwells (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GTD Page

I agree, there may be some refactoring necesarry but what you did pretty much trashed the entire article i.e. you deleted everything but a "core" which YOU think is the core. I would really appreciate it if you could roll-back your deletions till the ongoing discussion comes to a sane conclusion ... cutting down a not-so-bad article (there are some which are a lot worse on Wikipedia) imho is bad practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meandtheshell (talk • contribs) 10:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

you are right, i got impatient. (I was so impatient I forgot to remove the speedy tag & someone else had to do it). I've restored the full version, and then made a more careful cut at what seems a reasonable level of detail, and some other edits. You were free to restore it, you know, and you are free to edit further. Please see WP:BRD--sometimes an article needs a bold move to get revision started -- I tried to explain that in making the edit I was not acting as an administrator, as administrators have no special control over content, and can be reverted just like anyone else. We don't get angry at it--well, at least almost all of us don't get angry at it. DGG (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why PROD spam?

Hi. You changed my speedy deletions on Best Engineering Colleges in Orissa and Best 20 Engineering Colleges in Orissa into PRODs. I was wondering why? The articles have no encyclopaedic information and, by the use of the word "best" in the title, they seek to promote the institutions listed. They also include contact details. Clearly the intention is to solicit customers for these institutions. Isn't this unambiguous spamming? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider them promotional for anything in particular, just the concept of engineering education in Orissa. I removed the speedy you placed on the one at AfD as well. OR is not a reason for speedy, just a reason for regular deletion. I agree there is some interpretation involved, but the articles will be gone soon enough. DGG (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

George Boyer

Your recent edit to George Boyer [8] introduced some odd typos. I tried to figure out what your intent was, but couldn't quite get it. Could you take another look? Thanks.—C45207 | Talk 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

the problem seems to be with the template "American historians". I removed it, but it needs checking--I see what they were trying to do, but I need to see how tit works on other articles. I fixed one other. If I missed any, please fix them or let me know. DGG (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing.—C45207 | Talk 16:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Russian cultural register

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Russian cultural register. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

pause

To give me a chance to think about what ? Is this how you treat all editors ? Protect it from what ? While I admit that WAID got under my skin with his constant badgering, insults and personal attacks in the past I have been picture perfect today . I have been off wiki for just the same reason, because I knew I was getting frustrated but there is nothing of that sort today . If there is something to do with an article or statement point it out but don't leave these vague mysterious notes like I'm gong to have a clue what you are talking about .DarlieB (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful cooperative editing seems to have resumed today on the talk page there. That twas my purpose, and it wad achieved. DGG (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz

This is close to getting listed at BLPN. Perhaps you could look at the discussion and comment? What is notable, what is not, and what may be potentially slanderous/irrelevant here? PS. Please consider archiving your talk page, it is so big it is difficult to edit :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have a good way of handling it , & I said so there. DGG (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you comment on the notability of his case, discussed at the very bottom of the article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

rescue tags

Sometimes you can get through to him: while discussing this, can you discuss the deceptive tags he puts on the edits as well? "Added" is just kind of pathetic, but this and this cross a line.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

looks to me that he was copyediting, and then decided to put up a rescue tag as well. It can be difficult to choose what is worth the effort when there are so many things that need improvement. I can see someone getting impatient with the number of deletions to contend with, just as I can see you getting impatient with the number of hopeless inappropriate articles that need deletion, and I get impatient over spending time on this when a simple consensus to merge to combination articles in almost all cases would save us all the trouble. DGG (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If this was the only instance, I'd be inclined to agree. Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a long, long stream of examples of him using edit summaries that are intended to make his edits harder to track, rather than explain them. It's been an old problem. Anyone that mentioned it had his edits erased from A Nobody's editor review. Deor's edits to follow up on the recent problems were silently removed from the talk page. My efforts to follow up on that were silently removed, then erased, while a top notice was placed on the page declaring me unwelcome, followed by an edit summary accusing me of hypocrisy and personal attacks. I can go through the RFC process, but it would be best if you were to help him understand that this is an important issue and it must stop. Getting an RFC certified would be easy, but given A Nobody's normal response to criticism, it's likely to be exhausting and unpleasant all around.—Kww(talk) 03:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, misleading tags is a very common and very pernicious practice by no means limited to him. It has the advantage it doesn't leave traces on the actual p. or talk p., but it can be very confusing at best--I doubt it really deceives anyone experienced, though. We all I hope know to check the edits themselves. I think these postings here might get the message across at least to him that it is not ok. Remember as well, that if anyone deletes something from their talk p, its good evidence they read it. DGG (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

NYPL

How did the first class go? Do I need to know anything other than that I need to be at the library by 6:30 on Tuesday? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

First class, on using Wikipedia went find--a varied audience--18 people, their capacity, some with almost no web experience, some with considerable, up to the point of trying to do Cyrillic searches in our search box, (I showed her how). Next one is editing and possibly writing articles. DGG (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I sent you an e-mail. Talk to you tomorrow! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

NPA

I've placed your NPA message at SpacemanSpiff. It seems that you put it on my page by mistake. I looked over my edits and I can't find any attacks made by me. However, just after I closed an AFD, Spaceman added a comment on an AFD calling me an idiot. Therefore, I think you put your friendly reminder on the wrong talk page. Amthernandez (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Where did I call you an idiot? I just refuted your claim that the subject was an idiot. I've also reverted your entry to my talk page. -SpacemanSpiff { ^Calvin _Hobbes 04:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked where.....here....

In addition, the arguments at this AfD have shown that he isn't the idiot. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please also refrain from telling un-truths. I did not say the subject was an idiot. He is probably not an idiot. What I did say was that being named to an endowed chair does not always reflect merit. In some universities, lots of donors give lots of money so they have several faculty positions which are named after the donors, like the John Smith Chair of Sociology and the Mary Jones Chair of Social Psychology. Then the chairman picks some faculty members to occupy the job. Wikipedia has made a mistake of saying that anyone holding a named chair is notable. That's probably because the author of the guideline didn't understand academics! Amthernandez (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to post comments, post the full comment, not a section of it. An incorrect article because I decided to close the sentence early and didn't go back to correct it is not a personal attack. My replies end here. -SpacemanSpiff { ^Calvin _Hobbes 05:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

please both of you go fight somewhere else, not my talk p, not anywhere in Wikipedia. Better yet, don't fight at all. Amthernandez , the reminder was in respect to the way you worded the close at [9]. It was fully justified. Most admins would have called it a warning. DGG (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

NYPL outline

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ssilvers#NYPL -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the help on my talk page, I'm still new to WP (though learning quickly on a steep curve!) so the step by step instructions are much appreciated! Frmatt (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Society of Hospital Medicine

Hi. Since you have placed your tag and notes on this article, we have revised with advise from you. I was hopeful if you could review and advise if we revised to a point that you could remove your tags. If not, can you please offer some more guidance so that we can make this article meet the expectations of the community. I am new and am learning, but am very interested in maintaining standards and helping grow...Docbb1 (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a little editing. it's basically OK now, in my opinion. That does not necessarily mean that others will agree with me, but let me know if there are problems.01:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi...thanks for the updates and the advise. We will continue to work at making this article informative and beneficial to the community while refraining from any type of language that would consider it in violation of the guidelines. On the next round of additions, I may ask for your thoughts (and appreciate everything to date).Docbb1 (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, I am not directly involved in AngioSplice but will pass on your kind sentiments. (BradKeely) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradkeely (talk • contribs) 07:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

adding references

I finished adding the page numbers to the specific reference. Thank you for your advise. (Salmon1 (talk) 21

04, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock?

Are you, qua an admin, able to easily see the IP address from which contributions have been added? If so, I'm wondering if that whence user:Lambchop2008 (an SPA, it seems) has contributed to Talk: Sarah Palin today matches the IP address of anyone else contributing to it in the last few days?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

no I am not able to do this . Only a very few people are, the ones with WP:Checkuser can do that. You can contact directly one of the checkusers as explained on that page, or make a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations DGG (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks - I didn't realize it was such a big deal as it appears to be from the notes at WP:SPI. I don't have any evidence of sock puppetry, just vague suspicion, which is more or less what SPI says isn't enough. For now I'll just keep an eye on that user's contributions. Thanks again,- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Event Photographer Society

I think you misunderstood my comments about the Event Photographer Society entry, the page here was not set up to provide a balance, it was the site itself which is now the most authorative site for event photographers in the UK. The American SEP society has approx 1000 members whereas EPS has already gained 300 members in its short existance(population wise a far greater percentage). It is well known amongst event photographers in the UK - it certainly was not the intention to seek publicity here, as was stated you already have similar organisations listed which have no more authorative or informative links. If the short history of the article is examined an ongoing process of editing was being carried out which now can not be finished. I would appreciate the opportunity to finish the article which can then be properly assessed. I would appreciate answers on my account.

EventPS (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

are there references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases? I'll restore the article,place an "under construction" tag on it, which should keep it for a few days, and then you can add them. Be sure to write the article in such as way as to show what the organisation actually has accomplished. If it has sponsored shows, for example, are there published reviews of them? If it has published something, what it? It's not a matter of balance--each group stands or its own merits.

Please do not write it in the future tense: "The Society will function ...." is the sort of wording that tends to be judged as promotional, Similarly, material explaining the benefits to a photographer for joining is also likely to be considered promotional. Similarly, this is not the place to describe the profession in general, or the basic functions of professional societies in general. It;'s about this particular society. And, most important, do not copy material from your web site or other previously published material unless you carry out the full formal procedure of explicitly licensing the rights to the material according to our licensing using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials-- Otherwise, such material must be rewritten. DGG (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Request- Muqarnas (architecture)

The aforementioned page was erroneously created in service to disambiguation; the related disambiguation and redirect have been deleted, and the page content returned to Muqarnas. A hat note appears at head of the Muqarnas page.Mavigogun (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I figured it out. I changed the page to redirect to Muqarnas, but the page itself cannot be deleted because the history of the article is there, and we must preserve the entire earlier history of the article. If this does not do what you intended, let me know. DGG (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting

Still waiting for your comments at Talk:Rafał_A._Ziemkiewicz#lawsuit_and_apology. Please archive your page, it is becoming impossible to edit it properly. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

try edit the sections, or use the add new section tab at the top. But you are right, I have gotten behind in many things. And if you want me to follow up on a comment do ask, like now because i usually don't watchlist them or I would really go under. DGG (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania–Romania relations

Did you have time to help add references to Lithuania–Romania relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

Thanks for the info on speedy deletion. The speedy deletion template is preferred over the wp:merge template because there is nothing I wish to merge over. I plan to delete and redirect. Huo Xin (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

about which article is this? DGG (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong

I am very curious how it is that you have the ability to determine when something is important enough to be shared with the world? The article created about Little Italy's that you deleted earlier today was just as relevant as the page on mcdonalds. or the page on jon bon jovi. simply deleting an article because it's frame of reference is not within the scope of yourself is far from ethical or sensible. the notability guidelines state that the subject matter covered must have secondary sources and be documented. there are numerous documentation for the restaurant as well as it is listed and discussed in one of the most awarded student run campus papers in the midwest, the volante. It is because of this that i am highly questionable of you and your seemingly biased practices. please feel free to explain. Blstormo (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not. I only have the ability to determine that something makes no claims to importance whatsoever. a listing of a college town restaurant in a college paper is utterly trivial. And it's not just me-- another administrator had previous deleted the identical article 2 hours earlier. A few hours before that, you article about the restaurant's Little Italy's Pizza Challenge has been deleted twice, by two other administrators than myself. So that makes 3 of us; we might all 3 be wrong, but since we act completely independently, it's highly unlikely. I will frequently restore an article on request if there's a chance of it being worked on to show it's notable and not primarily publicity-=-there's an example a few entries up on this very page. Not for this. If you can persuade someone else to restore it, or take it to deletion review, the community will decide in a discussion, but my advice is that it's wildly unlikely to succeed. No reflection on your pizza. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a restaurant directory. We do not serve for publicity--nor need we, because the lack of an entry here does not prevent the world from knowing about your restaurant--there are multitudes of other web sites to post your information, all of them equally available to anyone in the world. DGG (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not my pizza, and i do not understand that statement at all. If this restaurant listing is "trivial" what makes mcdonalds any more important? why is it that godfather's gets it's page when someone posts it, and yet this restaurant operates in the same way with roughly the same business plan and yet it is removed for being meaningless? as for the little italy's pizza challenge, if you will look further into it i did not create that article it was created by someone else obviously from this area. How does this make no claim to importance? simply because you have not heard of the restaurant, surely that does not constitute as its lack of importance? And as the article was just created is it not asking alot for every relative reference be immediately placed in it? The listing and repeated mention in the college newspaper did nothing more than to prove the challenges existence, not the restaurant. I am very confused how it is an encyclopedia and yet mcdonalds, burger king, fox's pizza den, and the other thousands of restaurants that are reflected within wikipedia's pages are any different other than their scale and influence. At what point does something go from an informative article to what you describe as advertisement? I think it is rather naive and ignorant for one person to declare that while the history of an establishment is not important to them, it is somehow not important or relevant to any other portion of the population. Is it not wikipedia's reputation as having information not contained in the Britannica or other encyclopedia that has granted it such wild success? I am not here to advertise anything or promote any ideas that would go against facts. I am simply attempting to create a historic and accurate article for anyone and everyone that will be in the area and is curious about the restaurants past. there are thousands of citizens and even larger amounts of alumni that are aware of this establishment and to deny them any form of accurate information is akin to censorship and goes against all that free knowledge has come to represent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blstormo (talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because they have multiple references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online. "Scale and influence" do tend to have a great deal to do with it. A RS is one that is , among other things, selective, and local newspapers, college and otherwise, normally cover every restaurant in the vicinity. When someone tries to tell me that a local eatery deserves an article because BK has a article, it does not help convince me.. I've told you 2 ways to go: if you can find any admin to undelete it, I have no objection, tho I will certainly list it for AfD and the community will decide. If you list it at Deletion Review, the community will decide there. That two other admins have decided just as I have confirms my view of it. Enough has been said here. DGG (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

i greatly disagree with your logic. all you have done is shift the blame here and there and not stated any real reason why because the scale and influence does not affect you, it somehow doesn't affect anyone else. i will be placing this for review and i highly recommend that you review in a more unbiased opinion in the future and take into account that a local newspaper is exactly how the new york times started, and to say that they do not have any credibility would be utter blasphemy now. Thank you. Blstormo (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're speculating on what may happen in the future instead of looking at reality. Enigma^msg 03:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

are you suggesting that perhaps your reality is the only one that exists? regardless speculation to the future is a billion dollar industry and to even begin to discredit that is an entirely different subject. what i do have to say is that i am greatly disappointed with the administrative "staff". it seems that it is comprised of a group of elitist that feel they are able to create their own encyclopedia with all of their knowledge, negating the rest of the population. either way, thank you for closing my eyes, i am sorry i have wasted your time and wall space. good day. Blstormo (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

John Fisher and this page

Upon further review, I agree with your comments at the John Fisher page. The allegations are rather severe and not properly sourced. How did you happen to come across that page?

Also, would you consider shortening your user talk page? It looks like much of it is already archived, so it could simply be removed. There are some duplicate sections, etc. Enigma^msg 03:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I came across the discussion on your page when I left you the note about the Little Italy's article -- see above. DGG (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Hicks (Youtube series)

The reason why The Hicks (Youtube series) was created with the notability and unsourced tags on it is because it's a copy of The Hicks, which has already been deleted once for failure to prove notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a better idea to develop it in user space? DGG (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is being developed in user space, at User:Lalacourtney/The hicks, although the IP user who did a lot of the development of the article outside of user space continues to re-add the categories in the user space page though it's been explained to them twice that the categories don't belong in user space. That same IP also did a lot of editing of the original version. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Case for admin intervention?

Ordinarily, I'd take this to WP:WQA, but I've recently been criticized for raising issues at the cluster of admin noticeboards, so I thought I'd try going direct to an admin.

user:Dstern1 has crossed swords with various editors at Talk:Sarah Palin, myself included, over what he sees as an attempt to remove bias from the article and the rest of us see as his insistence on inserting it. user:Lambchop2008 offered support for Dstern's position (you may remember that I asked you about a possible sock concern arising from Lambchop2008, an SPA). I flagged Lambchop's contribution history and SPA status at the talk page (Talk:Sarah_Palin#Our new guest.2C_user:Lambchop2008). Dstern wasn't too happy about that, claiming that I was "attacking" and "defam[ing]" Lambchop, and urging that I delete the comments. I declined.

This morning, user:98.191.11.162 (contribs), has been editwarring over changing the title of the subsection flagging Lambchop as an SPA and potential sock, trying three four times to change it to a snarky personal attack (from "Our new guest, user:Lambchop2008" to "Palinite,user:Simon Dodd has a tantrum"). [10][11][12][13]

user:98.191.11.162 is user:Dstern "contributing" anonymously. We know this because user:98.191.11.162 recently posted a comment to Talk:Sarah Palin (dif), and shortly thereafter, Dstern edited the signature on that comment to claim it for himself (dif). Someone forgot to log in, commented, realized the goof, logged in and corrected. And that slip now fingers his collar for this morning's infantile behavior.

Is there any admin action appropriate and possible - warnings, blocks, etc. - under the rubric of WP:NPA, WP:BATTLE, WP:EDITWAR, etc.? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The entire section was a very poor idea. please email me. DGG (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where do I find your address?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Use Special:EmailUser/DGG --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Thad; David, email on its way.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion by dated prod template

Am I correct that an article tagged with the {{dated prod|concern = Orphan, no context.}} template will not be deleted by an Admin if there is opposition on the talk page? Yes, I know that an AfD may well follow if the earlier deletion attempt is denied. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

the usual course in objecting to a prod tag is to remove the prod tag, and explain why it has been removed on the talk page. It is possible that if the deletion was objected to on the talk page and the tag not removed, an admin working quickly to clear all the things out that need to be cleared might not have seen it. (This is different from speedy, where the author does not remove the speedy tag, but adds a hangon tag, and explains on the talk page.) Articles deleted merely by prod will normally be restored on request, however--what article is it? You should first ask the admin- he might have a good explanation--or might be able to make clear why the article might not be suitable, and an AfD certain to delete the article. DGG (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is one of a set, Samples of Script typefaces and the article is still there, but the seven days have expired. I let that happen without removing the template, mostly to learn the processes involved. I will remove the dated prod template, and see what happens next. I also put the whole article in my sandbox, so I can improve it. There are other articles in the set which have not yet reached the seven days point. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The instructions for PROD specifically tell the deleting admin to check the talk page for objections, but that doesn't always actually happen. It is much simpler just to remove the template if you object to it, using the edit summary to explain why. PRODs can be contested at any time, including after deletion, so removing a tag after 7 days have technically passed is not an issue at all. As an aside, being useful isn't actually a valid reason to keep something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Now we have other editors saying to improve and de-orphan, and not delete, and in two instances they have started to do improvements. I have done some minor improvements myself. My approach when I first saw the PROD notice was to be patient and seek advice and help from other editors, rather than immediately doing deletion of the PROD, and I believe this has turned out to be a good approach. One editor says there are reasons to say that the article is useful in various contexts. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that as a matter of strategy, it is sometime best to take the full time allowed to improve the article, and then remove the tag. If you remove it immediately without improving, the person who placed the tag will usually send it to AfD. If you improve it first, and then remove the tag, they may very likely accept the improvements--and if they don't you're much better prepared for an AfD. But don't leave it up to the admin at the end, if you think thee is any reasonable case to be made yourself. Any admin who think they make no errors is probably not being realistic. Don;t trust us too far--if the article has any chance of being acceptable, you have the right to a community opinion. Though "useful" alone is not reason to keep an article, in practice it will sometime help for unconventional articles like these. Remember our basic principle: IAR, if it is necessary to make a better encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your contributions to this discussion. I have learned a lot here, and from the editors who have added improvements and have comments on the PROD. One of my objectives was to avoid the kind of unpleasant disputes I have seen elsewhere on Wikipedia, and it is clear for now that I have achieved that objective. An AfD may follow, but the process on the PROD means that other editors have directed some attention to this set of articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

DGG, I blame you...

...for ruining my evening, which I spent hypothesizing Repetitive song rather than simply propose List of repetitive songs for deletion and reading a book to my kid.

Need a refresher? Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of repetitive songs. You mentioned that a real article would be a better than a bad list or deletion, so I decided to give it a shot (thinking also that, if I nominated the list for deletion, you would come by and sink my deletion ship...). I think I'm skating on thin ice, getting a bit close to synthesis (I could easily write this as an essay, but that's for a different forum), but anyway, I gave it a try. Please have a look at User:Drmies/Sandbox; I appreciate any help you can give. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's a good start: What i suggest is to move the existing article to Repetitive song, and add your material. The existing list will then serve nicely as a section on examples. Alternatively, move your article into mainspace, and merge with a redirect , to maintain the attribution. I'm sure people will find some more of them. I'll take a look also. How did you happen to be looking at 2 year old AfDs? Don't you know AfDs are addictive? 200 AfDs to close today; Close one, and there's 199 AfD's to close today; Close one , and there's 198 to close today; Close one ........ Close them all, and there's 200 AfDs to close tomorrow..... DGG (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, I got to read one chapter from Pluk van de Petteflet after all. I'm going with the second suggestion. How I got to this? Are you sure you want to know? Plain curiosity...some Recent Changes on List of songs based on poems which I looked at...then I was wondering if there was a List of songs based on stories (for Iron Maiden's "Murders in the Rue Morgue")...there isn't, so on to Category:Lists of songs...where I found Repetitive songs whose very existence rubbed me the wrong way so I was going to nominate it for deletion, and I've never nominated something that had already been nominated before (my eye falling accidentally on the subst:afdxx thing) so I look for the history where I see the earlier AfD and your spoilsport-comment which I could not, in good conscience, ignore, and here we are. (Oh, I just read Faulkner's "Barn Burning" and now I want to be a stream of consciousness writer). AfD's are a bit addictive, but the combination of curiosity and Wikipedia is worse. Wikipedia is an enabler. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dastur M. N.

You are right, but I am yet to finish with this article, but I do have to rely on various web pages to create a foundation, I am in process of making this article in line with Wikipedia requirements, ultimately Wikipedia should carry an article on Dr. M. N. Dastur, he played a very important role in Indian steel industry. Maybe within a week this article will become more presentable. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I have moved it to M. N. Dastur
2. Give a list of his major publications in full bibliographic format
3. Provide specific references for every paragraph there and award. some are in the two Hindu articles, or http://www.dasturco.com/au-mnd.asp but you need to find refs for the others.
4. After the first use, replace his name most of the time with "He", sometimes with just "Dastur", and group the sentences into reasonable paragraphs.
5. Let me know when you're done, & I'll take a look at it. DGG (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Shrikrushna Keshav Kshirsagar

Article was PRODded; his Worldcat listing - UCB, Wis-Mad etc carry his Marathi language books, so he's likely notable, but nothing I could find in terms of RS resources online, but that's because he died in 1980 and is a non-English writer. Is there something that you might be able to find? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

they should be enough. What you need to do now is add the bibliographic record for each the the books that has a worldCat entry. Mention the one that is an anthology. I think you'll do better finding print sources than I would--you may notice the neither NYPL or Princeton has copies of any of the books--they are both very weak on S. Asia, though Princeton is planning to hire a bibliographer for the area and remedy the situation. DGG (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do that. thx -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Aileen Roberts

Hey. Thanks for your help. I scoured the net, including the archives of the London and Edinburgh Gazettes which are supposed to include information on honours, etc.,which go back ages, but I couldn't find any specific reference to the "contributions" Roberts made to get a damehood, although I strongly suspect it was for WWI war effort sort of thing. I'll keep looking though. As a DBE the page really should be safe in my opinion, even though it's a tad thin. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

seems safe now. Odd, though, that it wasn't there. DGG (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

German politicians

Once we've gotten the redlinks filled in (hopefully tomorrow, at the rate I've been going), I'll go in and do some of that. Then I've got some New Caledonian politicians to take care of; with what's in the French Wikipedia I should be able to get a stub category created over here fairly soon. (Couldst please reply over on my page? Thankee in advance, kind sor.) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do, and thanks for the help; I've come through rather unmolested, though, so I hope my luck shall hold for the nonce. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Butterflies of Morocco Deletion

I put some thoughts on the talk page.I could have avoided this by making the list partly alphabetical. The "scientific order" represents a truth without foundation. Many thanks for your forbearance. I should have given this more thought and time. Robert aka Notafly (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you say you cannot work on it till September, the best thing to do then is to ask for the page to be deleted, and re-enter it at that time. Just place at the top a line reading" "{{db-author}}",. There will be no prejudice when you redo it. DGG (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine I'll do that atb Notafly (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I deleted it. DGG (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

John Fisher School

I noticed on the talk page for this school you said that you thought the deletion of a segment about bullying at the school was correct. This segment has been removed repeatedly. All it says is that there was a report in the local paper about a few ex-pupils who were bullied and picked on and didn't like the atmosphere there. As a pupil there before their time I thought, 'yeh, I know what you mean, it was a horrible atmosphere' though I was never physically bullied by the staff. I can't see for the life of me why that isn't o.k Some said in a previous discussion ' you've got to balance it' but I don't see why. What if no-one can be found who wants to say the atmosphere was great. Then it amounts to this ; 'We choose not to say anything positive, or give positive testimony, but we simultaneously confer upon ourselves the right to censor this article and shut those ex-pupils up. Who cares if they were bullied?' Is that balance - or censorship. The page was protected by enigmaman and the template says ' this protection implies no preference for either version' or something like that , but a cursory look back through the discussion page finds this user calling the deleted passage about bullying ' horrible' etc . In other wotds his claim that the action is disinterested , is sly, is disingenuous, it's a lie . Just my opinion fwiw, it was a lousy school!, a few decent teachers tried though.Sayerslle (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I read that newspaper article, and in my opinion & I think the general opinion here an anecdotal report like that does not justify coverage in an encyclopedia article. In a short article here about a school, the material is grossly disproportionate. I do not thing Enigmaman was wrong to protect the article against it. This is material for a blog. We are disinterested--I do not care the least about the school, one way or the other. Bullying is not uncommon. If there were articles in the national press that the school is notorious for being among the worst in the country in this respect, we might conceivably include a sentence. DGG (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Academic journal

Hi. You've edited Academic journal a few times so I guess it's on your watchlist. Can you have a look at the recent history? A minor edit war has broken out between me and an anon IP SPA. One of us clearly has a bee in his bonnet and I'm starting to wonder who!

As far as I can see he's added well meaning but irrelevant ELs which are also in breach of WP:EL because to get at the content you require registration. On their own the links don't do anything to enhance the article. He won't talk about it even when I shout. I've now reached the 3RR stage so I thought it would be helpful if someone else had a look.

Thanks. andy (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, forget this. He's been blocked for 24 hours and I've restored the article. andy (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw one of those changes last night, but didn't catch that it was repeated. Glad he;'s been taken care of. I am a few days behind on my watchlist. DGG (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits made on Charles Lockwood (author)

(Message re-posted - from my talkpage) Thank you, David. I've fixed the duplicates in internal citations. The phrase "corporate sustainability strategist" is actually a term to provide a "professional label" for Lockwood's work so I've attached one reference coming from an online periodical like Green Business Quarterly to support that, plus one more. Are those acceptable? Kindly check the other references as well for the statements that you advised me to embed some . There were some sections that needed citations I thought I'd just rewrite.Jxc5 (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not provide professional labels, we just distinguish between different people of the same name when necessary. It's Barack Obama, not Barack Obama (politician). We use just a middle initial when possible., e.g. George W. Bush. The rule is "only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name." WP:MOSDAB and " try to limit to a single, recognisable and highly applicable word regarding the person at hand." WP:QUALIFIER. in practice that means we use a general term, not a term attempting to describe the person as accurately as possible--that is for the article. DGG (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve Lightfoot

Hi. I saw you deleted the article I wrote about Steve Lightfoot. Would you be kind to provide me with a copy of it, so I can work on it and maybe one day return it to the Wikipedia?

Thank you. Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please either activate your email from your preferences page, or go to Special:EmailUser/DGG and email me, and I will send it. DGG (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please either activate your email from your preferences page, or go to Special:EmailUser/DGG and email me, and I will send it. DGG (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:On the Origin of Species.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-SusanLesch (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

North Epping murders

Hi, appreciate support for keep regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Epping murders. Seeking further support improving article. Thanks Ajayvius (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

you shouldn't canvass, but I was already there. If the article gets deleted, wait for more sources and try again in user space. DGG (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Welford Street Miracles

There were two AFD nominations of this today, so I merged yours into the earlier one. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Your turn

It's DarlieB again. I'm offwiki for the next six or eight hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

he's off wiki for longer. DGG (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of IPod Nano Touch

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cybercobra (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

question about deletion

My article titled 'Marc Bogaerts' was deleted by you 01:59, 4 May 2009 because of copyright infringement of http://www.bogaertsproductions.net. I am the author of the text placed on http://www.bogaertsproductions.net and I wanted to use part of the text in Wikipedia. What do I need to do and what proof would you need from me to be able to use the text I wrote for this website in Wikipedia? Or is that necessary that I write a completely new article? Yourtinkywinky (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You must explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials ; these give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes. When you send OTRS the permission, or add the templates, reinsert the article or ask me to do so. It will then need some editing, to remove some promotional wording from the first parts--don't use terms of praise and the like, and aim for conciseness. The text is close enough to acceptable to be worth the trouble of sending the license. You should also consider uploading and licensing a photograph that you have copyright to. There might reasonably be two: one portrait, and one of a particularly noteworthy production. Let me know when ready, & I'll check the article

Thank you so much for quick reply and your offer of help. I read the licence conditions, I thought everything over and I decided to write new text. I will make it more objective according to your remarks. For some reasons the deleted text is also gone from my subpage (my draft)and I would like to use in my new text some of the links I build in while creating the deleted one. Is there a way to get the draft of my deleted article back? Yourtinkywinky (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please either activate your email from your preferences page, or go to Special:EmailUser/DGG and email me, and I will send it. DGG (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I activated my email. I look forward to hear from you. Yourtinkywinky (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Some rewrite Charles Lockwood (author)

Dave, I just thought of rewriting the introductory sentence in Lockwood's bio. Is that more accurate or acceptable? How about the Corporate Sustainability section. I hope I can keep that? Please let me know if there's a need for further modification. Thank you. Jxc5 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing nationalism

TheFourDeuces is seeking a merger on the basis that it is "dictionary." Your opinion on the deletion discussion seems pertinent. Collect (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm here

Hi, I'm in NYC and will be at the Keynote with Jimbo, going to the beach later, and WikNYC part of Sunday. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dmitriy Berkovich

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SyG (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for the kind words, both on my talk page and via e-mail. They are greatly appreciated.

I just needed a couple of days to back off and cool down. Though this really wasn't a spur-of-the-moment decision...it's been a while brewing, and things just came to a head with the ANI. Ah, well...I'm back, now, and don't intend leaving any time soon. :-)

Once again, many thanks. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Contested prod

Since this stuff is very easily sourceable, are you going to add the sources? --Explodicle (T/C) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not personally able to write all of Wikipedia that needs writing, or fix all of it that needs fixing. there are tens of thousands of active Wikipedians here. My primary role here is in keeping possibly rescuable articles around long enough for someone to rescue them. This is the asymmetry between deletion and saving: one person can mark dozens of articles an hour for deletion, but one person can only save a few a day. The community as a whole does the work. The fewer rescuable article people nominate for deletion, the more I will have time to rescue. In this case--a summary table of the population of Connecticut towns, the sources are all in the Census reports, & are almost certainly indicated precisely in each of the articles. You are every bit as capable of doing it as I am. When I read your question I wondered if you had found an article where the sourcing might be more of a challenge than I anticipated. DGG (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I am just as interested in adding sources to this article as you are, but my primary goal is to improve overall encyclopedic quality, not to keep all rescuable articles. Since I agree with your point that the topic is potentially notable, I've redirected the article to Connecticut#Economy until someone someday finds sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

POINTy AfDs?

A user has just nominated 38 American Idol contestants in rapid fire on the basis of one AfD for a contestant who finished 11th being deleted at AfD. (See User:Dalejenkins/AmericanIdol for the list.) I believe the nominator was acting in good faith, but was being unintentionally disruptive because: 1) the user apparently made no attempt to judge notability but went only on their AI finishes. 2) no valid reason for deletion was given just "other stuff was deleted" and 3) the rapid fire nomination is not conducive to proper discussion/research, instead encouraging people to simply vote based on whether they think being on American Idol is notable. As such I have recommended they all be speedy closed. However, I am curious to hear what you think since I have no real experience with this sort of thing before. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The situation seems under control. I have no real idea what counts as notability in this area, but some good people have an eye on it. My general rule in contests on various sorts is that at a national level the first three places only are notable by themselves, if there is no other indication. Though such nominations as these can be disruptive, we have no good way of determining these things. The alternatives are to nominate for deletion from the bottom up, 1 or 2 at a time, which can take a long time and give inconsistent results, or try to settle it as a guideline, but a few people can prevent the necessary consensus there. DGG (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll just keep an eye on them then and see what happens. I don't really have an opinion on the notability of the singers, but felt this sort of mass nomination was likely to create "bad" or unpredictable results. (More so than a typical AfD that is :))

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - July 2009

The July 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16(talk)

Hello

Dear DGG, my name is Art4em and I came across your excellent work in the Lance Fung Gallery wiki article. In particular, I noticed your critical defense against many who wanted the article speedily deleted in the oft-quoted and indefensible cliche 'SPAM'. Thank you for that excellent action, aid and defense. The wiki arts community is all the more better for it.

In addition, I also enjoyed your reading your biography for it appears you do have excellent credentials and thus, well suited than most for wiki. Specifically, your noted appreciation for professors in major universities -- thank you.

Now then, given your excellent credentials, defense of academia and scholarship against speedy deletion by ill-equipped editors I would like to solicit your aid. Namely, a few of my articles have come under attack by "editors" who believe deletion is a wiki policy rather than discussion and editing. "SPAM" is thrown around by all of them like children spitting out bubble gum. Even with the aid of university professors at major universities who specialize on my subjects these thugs continue to prevail.

Given you excellent defense of the Lance Fung Gallery I was wondering if you could provide some poignant reminder to all that speedy deletion is NOT a wiki policy to resolve disputes.

Look forward to speaking with you, hopefully --Art4em (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"SPAM" as a reason for deletion is frequently justified. I have seem many cases of spam from gallery owners on behalf of their painters, and have often speedied them myself, using the same criteria that other admins use. Spam and promotion is a serious threat the objectivity of Wikipedia: our prominent position makes it a very tempting place for this, while our open editing makes it particularly susceptible. I declined the speedy in the case of this gallery not because the article was free from promotional parts, (particularly general description of cultural background and peacock language), but because there was at the core enough for a possibly passible article. I have revisited it it and edited sharply. Whether it is actually considered notable here is a question, not for my judgement, but for the community. It will depend upon whether the references are to the gallery, or just works exhibited there.

I have looked at the earlier discussions and at the deleted articles. For topics of modest notability, a modest article that is defended calmly is much less likely to get deleted. There is a chance that an article on LG Williams might stand. It would probably depend upon whether: you can actually show by published references that a number of his works are in the permanent collections of major museums, not just exhibited there. If you can show this, try to write a short article focused around that. Do it in your user space, by starting the page Art4em/LG Williams. Given the previous history, it would then be necessary to take it to deletion review and ask for reinstatement. Before you do that,I suggest you ask Tyrenius and Modernist as well as me for opinions about the odds. DGG (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments and time spent thereon. It is greatly appreciated. I have enjoyed the conversations very much, and indeed, this one too for the very reason that the bar of standards appears and disappears at every instance -- a sure sign of democracy! Time after time I have been given opportunities at the threat of speedy deletion and have at every instance met such insta-policies head on, only to have such and such decline such and such. The last instance was for a secondary source to be provided, which it was -- only to be considered unworthy by other unlearned editors (who could easily read the resolution proposals) despite its being one of the landmark publications on the west coast. In other words, never was the wikipolicy of 'editing' met head on; rather 'deletion' was speedily instituted -- which I find wholly undemocratic and unwiki.

Time after time, I have met editors with "speedy deletion" tattooed upon ones head, rather than resolution, compromise and edit: especially in regards to the 'countercultural' modalities that I and my peers frequent. The only exception being the "Jerry Garcia" group and crowd whom welcomed my scholarship with open arms. After reading your biography and seeing your handiwork, it appeared to me that you were fair and balanced.

Thanks again for your input and hard work. However, being directed to the above editors was the last place I was hoping to go with my scholarship, credentials, and major university peers. --Art4em (talk) 04:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts

Notable as what? The only "reference" information we have is that NPG sent a letter saying to remove something or they would pursue actions. The rest is impossible to determine as fact as there hasn't even been a trial. BLP makes it very clear that we cannot have innuendo or rumor. Anything not determined as fact by a court is simply not permissible. They can claim he broke whatever law they want, but that is the definition of libel. We are not to reproduce libel. I am very, very disturbed that you would claim that there is notability. You have spent enough time to recognize the complete inappropriateness of this. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And there are far, far more cease and desist letters that are sent and lawsuits filed that receive -actual- coverage than this. This clearly falls under not news and is only desired because it deals with Wikipedia. We have pages that the shear tiny bit of usable information belongs on. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you will convince me, since I am aware of the importance of this beyond Wikipedia. . DGG (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you believe that Wikipedia should have pages devoted to mere claims of criminality in defiance of BLP? You believe that Wikipedia should promote libel and accusations above truth? Seriously? You have just lost any respect. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Mere" claims have merit if they receive significant coverage in reliable sources. We have plenty of such information on Wikipedia. Any subject notable enough to be included in Wikipedia is subject to have any and all facts disseminated concerning them, with proper weigh, and as always, proper sourcing. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V. Wikipedia is not in the business of truth; but facts. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No claim of criminality has merit unless it is proven within a court of law. That is how Wikipedia operates. And that Wikipedian is -not- notable enough to have his own page. There is no way to claim he is. This violates BLP. This violates Verfiability and Notability. This violates Outing. Would we have a page devoted to the allegations against a Football Quarterback made by a woman? No, because that would violate BLP. So why have allegations made against an even minor figure? This is absolutely disgusting and morally reprehensible. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And facts? What facts? All there are is rumor and innuendo. There has been no court case to determine the facts! That should have been completely obvious and your statement is so absurd that I can't help but wonder if you are just trolling. Furthermore, WP:BLP: "We must get the article right." That includes -no rumors-. No unfounded allegations. Nothing but that which is proven. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"No claim of criminality has merit unless it is proven within a court of law" represents a somewhat naïve faith in the criminal justice system--if taken literally, we cannot report that OJ was accused of murder.

But in this case nobody has yet been formally accused of anything, nor have any actual threat been made--not even by the very shortsighted administrators at the NPG. And the article does not say that anyone has been. Rereading it, claims of BLP violation there with respect to C. are an absurd red herring. A really absurd red herring. Further discussion should take place elsewhere. DGG (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying "accused of murder" and having an article devoted to something that has not gone to trial, issued in simply a letter, and deals with a BLP without their own article. The fact that you would even through OJ Simpson up there as a comparable is disturbing. And a red herring? We are not allowed to report speculation. He was not proven to have "broken in" to anything. He was not proven to have "stolen" anything. He was not proven to have taken any copyright. We are reprinting -claims- and not -facts-. If these same papers stated that DGG was accused by the NPG of being a red cow, should we have an article about you being accused of being a red cow? Do you know how absurd that is? And this is a potential legal matter, and we are reporting accusations as facts. Do you know how immoral -that- is? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming you do not understand the situation and the implications. But I remind you of my request that further discussion should take place elsewhere. I suggest returning to the AfD. DGG (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? I don't understand the situation? How dare you. There are no facts. There have been no decisions. There is only the statement that some museum wrote a letter attacking a user of Wikipedia. There is no lawsuit. There isn't even anything to really discuss. We have pages on Wikipedia that can already deal with this. And yet -I- don't know what I am talking about? This is a major BLP violation and you are showing absolutely no respect of BLP. I hope to god you never bother going after any higher position because your mistreatment of BLP would put not only Wikipedia in legal jeopardy for treating rumors as fact, which is libel, but that you also put us in complete moral shame. I honestly can't talk to you again, so this will be the last time. Your attitude and behavior is so morally reprehensible that it would probably be best if you were never involved in such matters, as you cannot possibly do any good. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

actually, thinking more about BLP, as he has not been accused of any crime, and as the article does not say he has been accused of any crime, your stating here that he has been is the relevant BLP violation. As you seem to have lost all sense of proportion, I can only hope you don't repeat this elsewhere. I shall archive it for your own protection. DGG (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We're working on something special...

...to award Buaidh for all his hard work.

It's at User:Penubag/Sandbox3.

But it's not done yet. Feel free to help improve it.

I'm hoping that everyone involved with the WP:WPOOK will sign it (please sign without a timestamp).

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 22:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) I have long considered you sort of an "unofficial mentor" as I have learned more from you and your talk page than most other places. I also view you as one of Wikipedia's wisest and most respected members. As such, it was an honor to have your support on my RfA. I look forward to serving the community in my new role.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

JP Travel and general notability of smaller bus operators

Hello, there is a discussion at Talk:JP Travel which you may be interested in regarding notability of smaller bus operators. (This is a copy and paste message, I have included you in this as you make bus related contributions in the past) Jeni ^(talk) 18:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Looks like the same people up to old vandalism at ACTDU page. Recommend locking it for a while.JJJ999 (talk) 10:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

done. After the week, you might want to consider removing such extraneous material as the names of all the current officers. DGG (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Stephaniedavidson‎

Hello, DGG. I was wondering, do you think the wording I used in my warning note to this user was appropriate? I'm looking for feedback on my warning work. Thanks! Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 15:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Contact

Dear DGG,

I am beginning work on a new (non wikipedia) project and am looking for collaborators/mentors. You may be interested, or know someone who is. Please drop me an email: eprayner@gmail.com and delete this post asap. Thankyou, Eric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.13.168 (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

this could mean anything--please be specific. DGG (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicola Trussardi Foundation

All the artists listed for the shows are important figures on the international art scene, e.g. Martin Creed won the Turner Prize etc. The Foundation is notable: a quick selection from google: [14][15][16][17][18] For informed opinion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts is a good place to post. Ty 04:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

good, glad i removed the speedy on the foundation. -- for informed opinion you do pretty well all by yourself. DGG (talk)`

Talkback

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

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Boondocks characters

Hi.Maybe you are interested in the discussion there. An editor thinks I have to bring the articles to AfD, I am trying to reach a solution on the talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)