User talk:DGG/Archive 45 Oct. 2010

Jan10, Feb10, Mar10, Apr10 , May10 , Jun10, Jul10, Aug10, Sep10, Oct10, Nov10, Dec10

Replacing CSD tags removed by non-creator

You said here that it is against policy to replace speedy deletion tags removed by an editor other than the article creator. I thought that I had read that policy somewhere, too, but now I cannot find it. Do you happen to remember where it is? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

the statement is at WP:Deletion Policy#Speedy deletion:

Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions

I think everyone interprets "dispute" as good faith dispute--if someone removes a clearly justified tag just to be obstructive, I & every admin would undoubtedly speedy delete the item.

If someone comes to my talk p. & complains in good faith about a speedy I deleted, if it is truly undoubtedly hopeless I tell them so, and then ask if they wouldn't rather improve the p. first so it had a chance — and almost everybody in that position does just that. But otherwise, if it's anything that might possibly be a reasonable question, it goes to AfD, which is simpler and better than arguing. Perhaps someone there will find something to support it, or improve it drastically or rewrite it. Perhaps I made a mistake. Or, if it really needs deletion, a stubborn creator is more likely to be convinced if others say so also. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that find, I had lost it altogether and appreciate you bringing that stray back home. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#About.com sources from Hyde Flippo

Hi DGG. Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#About.com sources from Hyde Flippo? I want to know if two articles by Hyde Flippo at About.com pass FA 1(c). (I plan to use those sources in Have a nice day.) Because you provided valuable insight at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com, I hope you can provide advice for these sources as well. Cunard (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input at WP:RSN. You wrote that "[t]he article is explicitly stated as staff written; it would, of course, be much better to know by whom". In my response to LeadSongDog (talk · contribs) on 18:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC), I wrote that the author is Hyde Flippo. Hyde Flippo has been published by McGraw-Hill. Would this, and the fact that About.com has editorial control, make this a "high-quality reliable source" as required by FA 1(c)? Cunard (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you know that--I couldn't find it, but I admit I looked only very superficially. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The author of Article #1 wrote:

In an earlier feature, "Language and Culture [Article #2]," I discussed some of the connections between Sprache and Kultur in the broadest sense. This time we'll look at a specific aspect of the connection, and why it is vital for language learners to be aware of more than just the vocabulary and structure of German.

Article #2 states "The German Language and Culture Connection From Hyde Flippo, former About.com Guide". Cunard (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_October_1#Cleanwell

Thank you for the kind words and encouragement. Also, I was really surprised that you found the nytimes link (but thank you, your advice to add it to the article seems reasonable), as I had explicitly searched for something of that nature, but I did not use archived news. Thats all. Thanks. 98.207.84.77 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Silver seren RFA

You are one of the users I respect the most. I mentioned your name as an example because there was so many OMG inclusionist oppose votes, that i had to counter it. There are some valid concerns of the user though, especially with that one AFD, which I agree was hasty. Thanks Secret ^account 17:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with new article/deletion warning

Hello - I was wondering if you could help me with an article, BroadMap, that has been warned for deletion please. It is a corp. and I'm trying to follow the guidelines as seen with other articles and guidelines, but not sure how to correct this..please advise. Thanks Lcburns (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

I've seen worse. I'll make some suggestions on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving Message

Thank you for reviewing the article, BroadMap. Is it appropriate to remove the message and have it on my user page permanently vs the article talk page to work from and future reference? Also, I have made several changes and will continue to do to make it right. Thanks again. Lcburns (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

sometimes I put the advice in one place, sometimes another. In this this instance I put it on the talk p of the article because it is directed at anyone who might want to edit the article, and I wanted to make sure someone mentioned the Tele Atlas connection. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Events at the 2002 Winter Olympics

Would you consider it the same as 2002_Winter_Olympics#Sports? Same basic info. CTJF83 chat 22:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I would not consider it the same; I consider it a considerable expansion. Whether or not it should be a separate article is a question of merging, and A10 is specifically not intended for such. I suggest 2006 Winter Olympics#Sports as a possible way of merging. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok CTJF83 chat 22:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mohammad shaikh‎

Hey there DGG, about the above article/CSD. You mentioned that it is better sourced and less promotional than previously deleted articles. I don't have access to the previously deleted article. However, after attempting to move the article to Mohammad Shaikh, I received a msg: "You cannot move a page to this location, because the new title has been protected from creation". Therefore, I flagged it with a CSD as appropriate. If you now support the article, can you remove the creation block so that it can be properly named? Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I did the move, but since someone will almost certainly send it for AfD again, I decided to do so myself to facilitate discussion. It's at WP:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Shaikh (2nd nomination). I have no firm opinion on whether it meets WP:N; if you can find some other reliable 3rd party sources, it'll help. The community will make the decision. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have no opinion myself about notability or otherwise... Just came across the article in NPP and saw the recreation. I have no knowledge about the subject. Thanks for the help. Cindamuse (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• It has been repeatedly suggested giving well-established editors the ability to view deleted articles so they can see things like this for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PT Weda Bay Nickel

Hi, if you have a little time, please could you look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/PT Weda Bay Nickel - see if it can be tidied up, moved live? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

given the controversy, it really does need a conventionally RS, in addition to the sources given--exactly ss you said there. Google News Archive shows forbes but it dates from before the controversy. And [1] does not mention it. There's this from Business week, which comes very close. And here's a good one: [2]. With that last one, there's enough. I may not get to it for a few days , though. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Jennifer Chang AFD

Thank you David. I think this comment was very helpful.--Chaser (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

???

You told me to add sources to strengthen my article. I don't quite understand how you mean?? --Hendo1270 (talk)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendo1270 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC) 

Louth Meath Hospital Group

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

Counting citations

• Daemon (astrophysics) (AfD discussion)

The discussion has progressed into citation counting and whether Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions is peer reviewed. You might be interested. Uncle G (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• replied there. PR,yes,or so they say; quality=very low DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that. It's always good to have your expertise to hand in these matters. For what it's worth, I did chance across one actual source that itself discussed how much/little credence to give to Drobyshevski's DAEMONs hypothesis (in a group of such hypotheses), based upon what it was published in. However, that source was some years out of date, so I haven't brought it up. Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

About the Jennifer Chang Afd

Hi DGG,
Assuming good faith has it limits. Hmm... A number of editors with Korean names who contributed as native speakers of American English suddenly appeared in the period after the article is created. My Quick-and-dirty analysis:
Editors with Korean names who contributed to the AfD

• Eunice Kim
• Seongok Chung
• Sunghee Hong
• Kijeong Kim
• Jisuk Oh

Editors with Korean names who contributed to the the article

• Nambok Lee
• Hookyun Oh
• Yusang Chang
• Gloria Oh

They signed their contributions; unlike many new editors they didn't spend their first edit - or hundred edits - creating userpages. What's more, they edit with an accomplished understanding of how the wikipedia project works. (I was a klewless n00b and didn't even know that admins existed up untils my 2 000th edit or so) Back on topic: I would argue that these SPA's !votes and comments are, for lack of a better term, just too convenient to be considered in the AfD .--Shirt58 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• given the almost identical nature of their comments, and their (totally incorrect) arguments, no administrator would take them seriously. The only question for an admin is whether to see their actions as an additional reason to delete the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • See User talk:MuZemike#Checkuser. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

About the KoopCAS

Hi DGG, Good day to you, I am new here, I am wondering what you mean with Move, retitle, and Repurpose, I was glad that this software has recently been added in the wikipedia. Here in the Philippines, specially in the cooperative sector, we highly appreciate the Cebu People's Multi-Purpose for sharing their wonderful technology to other fellow cooperatives that badly need an alternative to very costly accounting softwares in the market. And it is sad to say that the cooperative sector here is not that well into browsing the internet. Maybe that is why there are less related websites pertaining to KoopCAS. But we will be highly grateful if this article would really stay in wikipedia and make the cooperative sector in the Philippines proud once again. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.22.249 (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, we can move the article to another title, and make it into an article for the CPMPC. We can in fact make an article for them in any case, but I would be much happier with two or three good references from unquestionably reliable sources like major newspapers that talk about them in a fairly full way, in any language. What I have found is a little marginal, because it doesn't really discuss them, just lists them. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Edward coram-james

What can be done about this[3] constant removal of a BLP prod from the Edward coram-james article? I've explained in edit summaries and on the editor's talk page[4] that a reliable source is needed. Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.84.207 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

normally, the thing to do is to look for some references yourself. As the subject is claimed to be an actor, there will be at least something in imdb, which is considered just barely a good enough source for verification, though of course not notability . We have a tag forthe purpose.  

{{BLP IMDB refimprove}}. So I did that, with the result you will see at User talk:Toby911911. As he's inserted the article before under other forms of the name, I protected both forms against re-creation. The point of BLP patrol of new articles is not just to tag the unreferenced, and help get the referenceable ones referenced, but to spot what needs speedy deletion. I speedy delete a few articles from the new BLP prod list almost every day.

And one hint: your good advice to users is likely to be taken more seriously if you get a user account yourself. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ayatollah Ahmad Iravani

Could you please undelete this article? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, please expand the abbreviations for the various organizations, and add wikilinks to the article on them. Then, you do need some 3rd party references. An easy way of providing them is to list his publications. I cannot find a current CV--the ones listed in the article seems several years old. According to our manual of style, I moved the article to Ahmad Iravani, without the title. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is my cue to point out that (as with #TJAARKE MAAS (1974-2004) above) my only real interest in the article is its copyright status. Is there some magic phrase I should be including with my requests for undeletion which would make this clear? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just say exactly that. But I think I'll be able myself to keep you in mind, and recognize that I must do the essential fixing myself if I can't get the original editor to do so. My apologies for not having realized this already. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

TA Connection

I just made the mention of TA, but do you mind if I move it? I also have edited it quite a bit. If you have some more time to take one more look, that would be greatly appreciated. Lcburns (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

The SPAs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Chang are addressing you directly. I blocked one for a legal threat. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Help for an Orphan Page

Hello...I was wondering if I could get your assistance one more time please. My 'BroadMap' article is improving thanks to your advice and others and now I have an 'orphan' tag. I'm not sure how to remedy this since I do have links in the article, but now I'm gathering I need to have other articles link to 'BroadMap'? I can create new articles from this, but not sure how to fix this...and also, can I remove these tags on the article itself now? Thank you. Lcburns (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not worry about this--but do not remove it. It's just a signal that if there happens to be some other article to link to it, it would be a good thing to have it. The principle is called "Building the Web" by making interconnections. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't remove the 'orphan' tag, but what about the others? I believe I've taken care of those issues. Lcburns (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Query as to why the 'LeaseWeb' wiki page was deleted

Hi There,

I was just enquiring as to why the LeaseWeb page I created was deleted? It detailed the relevant company information but to avoid it being deleted again I just wanted to ensure I am taking all the correct steps before creating it from scratch. Could you please specifiy which information I should include/exclude?

The reason was: (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

Does this mean there needs to be more detail on why the company operates? I am unsure so would really appreciate your help with this.

Thanks so much in advance for your help.

193.33.187.109 (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no indication in the article that the company is important. The basic criterion for inclusion is at WP:ORG -- you must show the notability of the company with 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, or given by informal testimonials. Actual product reviews published in major industry sources are excellent, if it appears they actually are independent reviews, not press releases. Importance is also indicated by being a leader in the industry, as told by such things as size, market share, notable products, very notable customers--but this information needs to be sourced, not merely asserted. Please see WP:ORG for a guide.. You also need to write like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise yourself, say what you do. Don't use vague terms like "global" and "highest quality". And, of course,do not copy from a web site -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. Articles about companies usually also include information their founder, and current chief executive (just the ceo, please), and they say where the company is located. If you are willing to provide a photograph of something sigificant about the company under a free license as explained at EP:DCM, you can do that aloo. For further information see our FAQ about business, organizations, and articles like this -- and also WP:FIRST. Hope this helps. DGG ( talk ) 13:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Badger

Belated thanks for this. Of course no "contributor to" (detractor from?) WP is under any obligation to know anything about the discussion of photography, but I'd have thought that those who didn't would at least be familiar with concepts such as investigation and search engine. And I'd have been wrong. No, wait, even those two wouldn't have been necessary -- all our chum needed do to was to skim-read the article, which clearly asserted notability. (Subsequent googling would have shown that the assertions were grounded in fact.) I have at least three books by Badger on my own shelves, but perhaps that's my problem: I should sell them and learn to appreciate Masters of prose such as (in different genres) Dan Brown and Glenn Beck. -- Hoary (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, clearly I'm forgetting the reason for my earlier dark view of well written articles by new "contributors". Gerry Badger turns out to have been plagiarized (from this). -- Hoary (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes in nominating an article for deletion an editor has a feel that something is wrong but cannot quite specify rightly why, and gives a wrong reason--I too have been regretfully learning that with a questioned article it pays to check for copyvio. I assume you write some basic texts: I'm not sure these list of other contributions really belongs in the article--we don;t usually include a full bibliography of minor work except for the most important authors. For example, for authors in the humanities whose main contributions are books, I don't usually include a list of their periodical articles, and I always omit such things as essays and book reviews and introductions. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not quite sure how it was that I started to note all those contributions. Most likely I was looking for books unambiguously by him, but was quickly reminded that these constitute an oddly small percentage of his work: he collaborates a lot, many of his introductions and afterwords are more substantive than their titles might suggest, and not many of these have yet been anthologized. But the list isn't a good precedent for this encyclopedia; I'll cut it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Gah! -- Hoary (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Trianz - Company Details

Another one that, if you could look at / make acceptable / move / give feedback, etc, that'd be great.

In fact, if you ever have time to look at any in CAT:AFC that would be great; we're pretty much snowed under there.

I've been trying extremely hard to keep it clear, and for the last week I've been reviewing about 50 per day. The vast majority have some sort of conflict of interest too.

Anyway - I know you're busy; if you have a chance to look at that one, or any others, that'd be great; cheers,  Chzz  ►  05:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

For this particular one, there are multiple source in GNews. They are not truly independent, as most or all of them, including one in the Times of India, seem to be based on press releases. So it's borderline. I;d suggest tell the person who submitted the article to go find the best, and add them.

More generally, the reason I have not so far worked on this project, is that there are some things I am unclear about concerning it.

1. The project is apparently aimed at approving only articles that would probably pass AfD, not merely ones that pass speedy. I agree with this goal, but it is very difficult for any one person to predict what AfD will regard as sufficient sourcing to show notability. What I normally advise people myself, is if there is halfway decent sourcing, to add the article and let the community decide, not just myself. In other words, instead of accepting only decent articles, I would accept everything that could become a decent article.

2. Almost by definition, any article at afc will have COI problems. If someone registered an account, their article could not be rejected on the basis of COI alone, and there is a certain degree of COI associated with about 9/10 of the contents of Wikipedia. The actual problem with COI is that it tends towards low quality articles. I don't see COI as a concern, I rather see the problem that we seem to have higher requirements for those who admit the truth rather than conceal it.

3. The project seems oriented upon accepting or not accepting articles, rather than on trying to see if an article can be improved enough to survive. It apparently gives suggestions for improvement, but the way I like to work is for small changes where its not a matter of instructing someone who might become a regular editor, I just make them myself.

4. I have never been comfortable with any project that has detailed and complicated obligatory working procedures, for how things are to be handled. that's why I am not active at SPI, and why I have never submitted an image. This is very different from learning detailed rules and criteria, which is unavoidable in anything complicated. But the actual work, I do free-form.

I'm not criticizing the work they do. I have great respect for anyone who works with new editors in any fashion and does it well. I am certainly not criticizing in any way at all the very good work you in particular do. I would not make my preferred ways into rules for everybody. But I have been thinking about the Afc process for a long time, and I'm glad to have an opportunity to say how I look on it. DGG

The above is extraordinarily close to my own stance. I work alone, almost entirely; I avoid things like 'adoption' - anyone can ask me stuff on my talk, and I answer; that seems to work just fine, without the need for any badge/userbox nonesense. I avoid joining projects and things for similar reasons.

You also reminded me a lot of a question I posed, some time back—Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2010#Why does this process exist?

I almost accept any AFD that I think wouldn't be speedy-deleted, although I often attempt to get the user to improve it, or improve it myself, or a combo. However, I must admit that sheer volume (and lack of enough people helping out) means I decline lots and lots simply because they are entirely unsourced, without looking for sources every time; if I didn't, the queue would be enormous. I suspect at least 9 out of 10 AFCs are entirely unsourced, and (I suspect) that 8/10 of them couldn't be appropriately sourced (ie not N).

AFC has many, many problems. There is no standard way they're dealt with; everyone has their own views. That causes obvious troubles. But, mostly, it is just hopelessly under-manned. And, as noted, I'm not convinced it should exist at all; I think, instead, we should work to make things easier for anyone who wishes to create a new article - via whatever method is appropriate. COi-wise, I agree with you, that far too many people see it as a show-stopper, instead of simply something to 'be aware of'. The problem there is that a hell of a lot of the contributors just will not follow the guidelines - it is quite true to say it is very, very hard to be neutral when you have a COI; consequently I spend many, many hours trying patiently to explain the same basic premise, that we need verifiable, factual info.

As to what should be done...my opinion changes daily. Hourly, sometimes. But mostly, all we can do is to endure, and try to keep making things just a little bit better, in one way or another. Best,  Chzz  ►  23:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mistake?

Hi! You answered my post on WP:ANI and I just wanted to check whether you perhaps intended to comment on something else? My post is about a long series of personal attacks by user BsBsBs, that has continued despite several users urging him to quit attacking others. Your comment is about how user Atmoz closed an AfD. I completely agree with your comment, but as it doesn't address the issue of BsBsBs personal attacks at all, nor even BsBsBs, I just wanted to check whether you perhaps placed that comment there by mistake? Cheers Jeppiz (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Featured List Criteria section 3b

Hello. You are receiving this message as you previously posted in the ongoing RfC on whether Featured List Criteria section 3b should be modified or eliminated. Based on feedback and commentary received during the section-by-section analysis of the current criteria, I have proposed a new version of the criteria here. I would like your input on ways to improve and refine this proposal, in hopes of reaching consensus to implement this change to the criteria. Thank you for your attention. –Grondemar 17:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Amber Dawn Lee

So the hangon tag didn't cause anyone to look deeper? I posted in the talk page, but received no response before deletion. What gives?

--Kevjkelly (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe DGG's in bed by now. Allow me to kibitz. You say:

Amber Dawn Lee is an inspiring individual who has overcome her troubled upbringing in a polygamist cult to make something of herself. She is outspoken in the area of human and children's rights.

To make what of herself?

Many people are outspoken. The question is of how much attention thinking people pay to this speaking out.

I see that Amazon lists a book by Lee. But it's published by Vervante, a service that will churn out as many copies as you want of anything you want. So this is hardly a published book as the notion is normally understood. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hoary -- she's become a model, an actress, a screenwriter, among other things. In other words -- "making" something of herself in the face of crappy odds. If Diane Sawyer and ABC news aren't "attention from thinking people" then your bar is exceedingly high. --Kevjkelly (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see the evidence from disinterested, reliable sources. (This isn't encouraging, but in itself not decisive.) -- Hoary (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally I will undelete an article I speedied upon a reasonable request, and let the community decide at AfD. Not this time. There is no reasonable claim to any possible encyclopedic importance; I interpret importance very broadly, but even I do not find it indicated here. A claim to having been raised in an abusive or unconventional household is not a claim to importance, even if there has been a television interview on the subject-- Wikipedia is not a tabloid. . Nor is having been interviews on television. Nor to be a model, or a screenwriter or or an actress unless there is some indication that the acting or modeling or writing has some possible importance, like being in a major role, or writing a script for a film that got produced. A claim to write a book is a claim to importance, but certainly not if it is self-published. In addition to deleting this as no claim to importance, it could equally well have been speedy deleted as being entirely promotional. This is a biography of a living person, and we are careful not to embarrass people by putting in articles that make unsupportable claims. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of . . .

this AfD discussion? After a fair amount of review I don't even think it's close to borderline. But some reasonable editors (not to mention the ARS partisans) have concluded otherwise. ^Bongo_matic 03:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

it's hard to give it up after such a difficult job of rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey David, thanks again for coming out to the fundraiser on Thursday. It was really great to meet you, and I'm sure I'll be seeing you again. In the meantime, if you ever need anything from me (personally or from the communtiy dept. at the Foundation), please don't hesitate to get in touch. All the best, Steven Walling at work 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "Responsive Process Management"

Hi. Your User Page says you post your email address, but I couldn't find it -- so, posting this question here. I'm the author of "Responsive Process Management" which apparently was flagged for deletion two days ago and deleted (by you) that same day. The stated cause was G12, copyright infringement. I'm puzzled by this action -- every sentence in the article was my own, and I spent a good deal of time writing it and footnoting it. And it had already been moderator-reviewed, a month ago, with no complaints. Can you please tell me what the specific issue is, and how I might address it? Or do I need to contact the moderator who flagged it for deletion to see what the specific gripe was? Thanks. (By the way, I see from your user page that you did a PhD at Berkeley. I worked toward a PhD in Political Science at Berkeley in the '80s, but didn't finish for various reasons. I now work as a technical writer.) Daschleicher (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

for email, use the e-mail this user link. It does not appear because you have not yet activated your own, which you need to do at your My Preferences page. ,

I'm the person to ask; I have the responsibility for having deleted it. (the person who tagged it is not an administrator--many editors devote effort to checking articles for potential problems and tagging them, and if the problem is such that deletion is necessary, then we admins verify the problem and delete them . Now, as for that article Responsive process management. I have done some further checking, and there does indeed seem to have been an error. The page specified was http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Responsive_process_management, but this is actually a general search site relaying to other links, and the ultimate link it got the material from was the article in Wikipedia. There are a number of such unattributed mirror sites, and we gradually learn to recognize them. I had not encountered this one before. I'm post a warning about it. My apologies, and I am very grateful for calling this problem to my attention.

I have accordingly restored the material. But I do not think it is fully satisfactory, A But there are two things more important: First, essentially the entire essay is unsourced. As you are knowledgable in that general field, you undoubtedly wrote it out of your own background--it is, after all, a fairly general article. But Wikipedia articles need to be sourced--see WP:V and WP:OR. As a guide , the only sort of generalization that does not need sourcing are the assembly of facts or things as obvious as 2+2=4. I'm sure a number of textbooks are suitable here, and you should try to source to at least the paragraph level, and specifically source any assertion of facts or evaluative statement. Second, the sources you did use are not really suitable--see WP:RS. We want references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or position papers or essays. The basic guide is that they must be under editorial control, as a magazine is. (The NTY Times article is a very good source, but it's on background, not the topic itself.)

Additionally, try not to write as an essay or tutorial guide. For one thing, articles here are expected to be readable as prose, and normally avoid an outline style. Further, they try to avoid jargon, and are expected to be concise. And they try to avoid a familiar tone, the sort of tone one would use in talking or lecturing. I often describe the expected style here is dry, dull, and descriptive. Dull isn't necessary, but the other two are--which makes it very difficult to avoid being dull, but a skilled writer can manage it. This is not the same as most technical writing, and it will take some getting used to. Many of the articles in this topic area are written in the same sort of style as your's, for it comes naturally to those who know about these subjects. They too are often poorly referenced, and will need to be rewritten at some point. I have the feeling that many of them are the byproducts of writing for other purposes, and, although original, were not primarily intended for Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

David, thanks much for the prompt and thorough response, and for restoring the article. I did actually write this article explicitly for Wikipedia, and I read the guidelines for writers and tried to meet them. Most likely I will do some additional work on the references as per your recommendations, though not for a while as I have assorted deadlines bearing down on me at the moment. Thanks again, Daschleicher (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Jihad and Genocide & Nava Appelbaum

hi dgg, you deleted one of the above article because the creator was topic banned, but I see here that you're of the opinion that they do not apply to the created articles of topic banned editors. thus, can you please recreate the above linked article. perhaps this can be discussed further at an afd. for what its worth, i will take independent responsibility for the articles. thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

the policy is currently uncertain. As written, the policy does not apply, but it is very possible that the consensus of the community is that it ought to apply to topic bans, that its application to topic bans is in the spirit of the rule, and its omission is an oversight (because the rule was written before topic bans at AN/I were as frequent as they now are). If this does represent the sentiment of the community, IAR would justify such deletions, because it is explicitly meant to be used to fill in such omissions. I am not a person to deliberately undertake disputable administrative actions in order to test a rule.

This is especially true when I am not sure I agree with the entire policy on the subject, even as applies to bans. If banned editors sneak in good content, it is perhaps evidence that they should not have been banned, or that the ban should be changed to a different remedy. I know the argument for the rule, however, and it is a very strong practical argument: that this is the only possible way of actually enforcing bans , especially considering that banned editors are commonly very willing to game the system; I think that the consensus is very strongly for maintaining this rule, and I am not sure myself it does not outweigh other considerations. Now, if this argument is valid, it applies to both kinds of bans, for exactly the same purpose.

At AN/I, in order to defuse the situation, I said I would do no further admin actions regarding this particular point until there is consensus. The actions a few editors dispute there were in fact not admin actions, but just declining to speedy delete, an action which any editor can do. Undeleting is , however, unequivocally an admin action.

it would make more sense to include a mention of the book in the article for the author--writing it without reference to the prior content; a redirect would be then appropriate. As for Nora A., I do not think there is any valid claim to notability, and it is a question also of ONE EVENT. But she should be mentioned in the article for her father, and there should be a redirect. The redirect was deleted partially because it kept the banned editor's contribution in the edit history--I think this was excessive, but I am not going to dispute it. I would try to introduce one--later.

For a more fundamental issue, I am well aware that editors on both sides of the Palestinian dispute have tried incessantly to introduce articles supporting their side, or articles that they think support their side. (The article on the book gives the views of the author publicity, and some may think it pro-Israli nationalist; myself, I think the article could be equally seen as pro-Palestinian nationalist, as demonstrating the extreme views of some Israeli nationalists.) To the extent that introduction of articles with a particular tendency exceeds balanced coverage, it is a POV violation. One could perhaps argue for inclusion of every article that possibly supports both sides of the disputes, but this too would be elevating the dispute beyond its already great significance. Wikipedia is not for propaganda, even balanced propaganda. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your thoughtful comment. after posting my initial comment here i researched WP:BAN a bit further and realized that policy allows for the deletion added by a banned editor, but does not require its deletion. i am not editing on behalf of the banned editor (never even had any off-wiki discussion with him) so policy does not prohibit me from recreating the article. i freely admit that the notability of each is questionable, the project would be better off if this were discussed via afd then with summary execution. you can initiate the afd, or perhaps i may do it myself. note, regarding nava appelbaum, her poignant story has been covered in RS years after the incident. best,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather odd essay...

I thought I should let an admin know that I found a rather odd essay on three user pages: User:Laroiwe, User:Research wide, and User:Eezies. I'm not sure if it's an appropriate use of userpages. It seems to be largely plagiarized as well, as I was able to google various (unquoted) sentence fragments and find their unattributed sources. Oore (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

seems none of them made any other contribution, and all 3 were done at about the same time. I strongly suspect the entire essay was copied from somewhere, and that the 3 are all one individual. If you can find one particular source, then add a CSD-copyvio tag. Otherwise, take them to WP:MFD, giving the links to sources. good job; how did you happen to find them? DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I found the pages while doing an external links search. There seems to be an identical essay at the Religion Wikia, which has a GNU Free Documentation License. But the work itself is likely a violation of U.S. fair use laws and a violation of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines since it's all essentially text lifted from various sources. Oore (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Trianz - Company Details

Hiya,

Can you please just have a very quick look at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Trianz - Company Details. I'm not quite sure if it is notable enough or not; if you think it is, feel free to just move it live. Hopefully this is a quick/easy one. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

refs are sufficient. Its rather hard to judge actual notability of companies in that geographic region. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK; I think / hope that means you think it an acceptable article, so I'll accept it. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  04:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair point

You make a fair point about PROD on my take page...Thanks 67.100.126.246 (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

STRAT technology Speedy decline

Hi. "... about a technical method, not a company, and A7 does not apply". Thanks for pointing that out - I'll be more circumspect in future. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

it can be a difficult distinction, and unless references can be found, that article won't stand. Thanks for spotting it. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Codf1977's talk page.
Message added 21:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion??

I don't know what your sense of humour is like, but I have just had an experience which I found slightly amusing. I saw that Roof of the world rally has been tagged for speedy deletion. Looking over the article, I thought it was borderline, and I was on the whole inclined to decline the speedy deletion. Before making a decision, though, I looked at the history of the article, and found that you were the one who had tagged it. Considering that I tend to think of you as an arch-inclusionist, while I have been in the past criticised (by you, among others) for being too ready to go for deletion, I find it mildly amusing to find myself inclined to keep an article that you want deleted. I still think it is a borderline case, and so I will leave the article with the tag for another admin to decide. However, I couldn't resist mentioning it to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not an arch-inclusionist--as Iridescenti said of me back at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG, "he can be as ruthless a deleter as anyone if he doesn't see a valid reason to keep" I have a broad view of encyclopedic content, but a low tolerance for outright spam and trivial local events. I will sometimes support not deleting a spammy article if I think it can be rewritten, but only if I think it can be rewritten and is worth the rewriting. For this particular article I considered it both essentially spam and not worth the rewriting, especially since the sources didn't seem good enough to write an acceptable article from. And in this case I was affected --perhaps excessively--by it being one of a group of 3 equally poor articles from the sponsor. But as I said myself at that RfA, "If I thought myself infallible, I would not be qualified". For this reason, I don't do single step speedies except in the most obvious of cases. ` DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was being rather tongue-in-cheek when I wrote "arch-inclusionist". I know full well from experience that you are perfectly capable of deleting when necessary. However, you certainly do tend to be more inclusionist than me, and, since you have been critical of me on those grounds in the past, I was a little amused to find an example the other way round, that is all. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DGG's unblocking of Rangoon11. Thank you. Codf1977 (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel now that I should leave some sort of comment here... I have no issue what so ever with your unblocking. As I said on ANI, I always find you using consistent, good judgment whenever you do anything, and that's no different here. I would have liked to have been notified before you unblocked, but I agree with the decision here, and as I just said, I trust you to do what's right. I'm not sure why Codf1977 felt it was necessary to go to ANI over this (ironically, he didn't contact me either X-D) but the unanimous consensus there seems to be that this is a non-issue. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010

Hi, thanks for your comment. Did you see the point I raised just above yours? The one about Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games. Maybe you would like to address that as well since everyone isn't noting one half of what I've said. Best, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Steven Rose

It was suggested to me I ask your opinion re User talk:Crusio#Steven Rose. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Securities Industry Association article

For some days before User:Acather96 initiated and you declined a CSD G11 speedy deletion of this article, you may have been aware, I'd been working to (at least) get the correct name on the article. I had then and still have an outstanding request at Wikipedia:Requested moves#October 12, 2010, and sort of updated myself just now at User talk:Acather96#Securities Industry Association article. I wanted to invite you, along with Acather, to comment on the name change I'm proposing if it's in your arena of interest. I'm also glad to thank you for declining the speedy delete. As I said to Acather, I've not been a big fan of the article as it's stood, but I'd hoped that getting it correctly named would at least give a bona fide platform on which to improve. "Security" as opposed to "securities" is not my primary interest so I can't promise I'd be the improver of the renamed article, but we never know.

Thanks again, and cheers. Swliv (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Me again. I think you'd weighed in in favor of the renaming on the now-deleted talk page to the now-deleted Securities Industry Association article, so thought you'd maybe be interested in the most recent development. I've addressed the deletion-instead-of-renaming here and secondarily here.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts you may have on the subject. Swliv (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DGG 's Comments in the Talk:Nair page

When I saw the subhead of this section it immediately came to mind that it must be about this particular topic, & I was right--those who know only a very little about the Nairs, know about this. -I am surprised a comment such a this is made by DGG . What does he mean by those who know a very little about Nairs, know about this? How does he hope to substantiate a statement such as this? (Through peer reviewed references, again?)This is the traditional position taken by people (Ezhavas, Pulayas, Christians and the like) who poke fun at Nairs and their custom of Sambandham. I do not know whether DGG belongs to one of these. It's immaterial, though. What 's most alarming is the fact that DGG holds responsibilities of Administrator, impartial investigator etc. It 's my considered opinion that it 's not befitting for people who occupy such positions in Wikipedia to make offhand remarks like this and continue to function as Administrators, Investigators, Arbitrators etc.86.138.58.157 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have given no opinion on the virtues of Sambadham, either in the sense of family relations in general, of actual or potential sexual relations, now or in the past, nor of the degree to which it is now or has been practiced. I did give an opinion that the subject is important in discussing the Nair, and I see nothing in your argument that responds to that. The practical thing I advised doing about the article was compromise,as I generally do. The compromise position is to discuss briefly the subject in the article.

More generally, it is rather common in Wikipedia for the supporters of a particular religion, to think that we should have the minimal coverage of topics where the practice of the group, either now or historically, runs counter to common prejudices or attitudes. I reject all such arguments, as being opposed to NPOV. I have to be sure seen many instances where there is focussed over-coverage of such matters,and where this is even due to a degree of animus against the religion by making it appear ridiculous. Such is also against NPOV, as well as sometimes being a sign of religious prejudice.

My own position is that no sexual custom is a fit matter for ridicule, and no group's real or purported practices in this or indeed anything else, should be used as support for ethnic or religious prejudice.

And NPOV is a overriding factor with respect to group susceptibilities or feelings. Everything --everything at all--should be discussed proportionately (with the exception that we have respect to considerate treatment of accusations about living named individuals). DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tony Gilbert

Thanks for your input. I closed it as no consensus. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I like your closing statement as an example of what should be said in such cases: "and since none can agree, neither can I." Don;t be surprised if I borrow it. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

James Cantor

I was looking into the edits of Dr. Cantor's former account, User:MarionTheLibrarian (only because the account had edited at hebephilia), when I found this saga, in which you seemed one of the most even-keeled commentators in a complex matter. Dr. Cantor also commented favorably on your contribution in that mediation. Perhaps you could comment at WP:COI/N on an issue involving James Cantor's edits in his area of research, and in the biographies of those who intersect his academic work. It was Dr. Cantor who asked that the discussion be conducted on that board. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I had hoped never to get involved in this general topic area again, but I will take a look. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I've added a paragraph about academic publishing to the article on letter to the editor; amazingly, there was nothing in there on the academic aspect. I admit to having written it based on my first-hand knowledge rather than citing secondary sources, but nothing in there is too outlandish, I hope. (WP:V does not require citations for everything.) Since discussions about this type of issue often appear in library science journals, perhaps you can improve some of that article. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at TransporterMan's talk page.
Message added 17:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Robert A. Sutermeister

Maybe not speedy material, but I can't see him passing an AfD at this point. Google turns up next to nothing relevant. I'll let it go for a few days to see if the original author improves it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Re List of Modern Weapons

David, clearly the scope (modern) post 1945 is defined. But is Weapon defined? Is this list restricted to military weapons? What about non-military weapons? What about weapons that aren't guns (as most of the entries are)? What about bombs, missiles, ICBMs, nuclear warheads, knives, etc? All these things are weapons. I just think the term weapon is much too broad and needs much better definition.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

as the contents of the present articles seems to be firearms, the title could say that, or the article expanded. "Weapons" is a think a reasonably well defined concept--the material implements people use in fighting--or the extended use to include non-material ones also, though such use is generally qualified. every significant class of things other than those defined by scientific taxonomy or arbitrary legalism has some some ambiguity in its definition. For my subject, does "book" includes "pamphlet"? for some other sets of things here: is a voice actor an actor? What counts as music? what as philosophy? DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Shepherd's Hill Farm

Hi, an article you provided a source for has been nominated for deletion. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shepherd's Hill Farm. Thanks, The Interior(Talk) 23:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, a quick question. You asserted in the above Afd that all high schools are notable. I was unaware of this notability policy when nominating the article. If you have time, could you point me to the WP page that states this for future reference? Thanks, The Interior(Talk) 00:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMON. I should have more precisely worder it as that we treat all high schools as notable. No article on a high school with verified physical existence has been deleted in the last three years here. The rationale of this is that if we actually look for sources, we'll find for 95%+ of high schools, and have in practice decided it's not worth debating to eliminate the others--especially because it would probably be 99% if we actually looked for print as well as online sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I'll monitor the debate over at Afd. The Interior(Talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ZOHO Corporation

I've restored the article and removed the CSD banner. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Email

I replied to your email, I don't know if you got it. Thanks Secret ^account 00:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your declined speedy of Shell (mathematics)

I saw that you declined my speedy. That's fine. Someone else has now prodded the article, and after that was removed, taken the article to AfD here. I get the impression you care about deletion, so I thought I'd point the discussion out to you. There's no rescuing the article, though; it's a hoax, but I think that's only obvious to mathematicians. Ozob (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Societism

Hi David, As you can imagine, I know so little about history that even the comments you gave me a year ago took me till now to comprehend. Thanks for your Keeper and OED reference. I found another one in my main reference "Individualism and Societism" by Holbrook. It actually is dead nuts on the subject and even explained why its very word and meaning was in jeopardy by some comparing it to Socialism. This spark made me finally understand why so many of my references were entirely wrong - because that's when it started. It really is a special article if you haven't read it. Anyway, the reference said the The Century Dictionary defines societism as "That theory of government which favors the non-interference of the state in the affairs of individuals; opposed to socialism or collectivism" as well as numerous others like the Manchester School. (boy how that meaning changed!) Would you happen to have access to this dictionary reference or know where I could find it? I would love to read it! And maybe add it to that OR article in place of say, Durkheim, Dafermos, and even Milton Friedman! Freedom2choose (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

that's not the definition of Societism--it's the definition of "individualism," from a standard 19th century dictionary--here's the edition that Holbrook probably used: [5] and the same definition is used in many other dictionaries & sources also, see [6]. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response David. I'll keep looking. Freedom2choose (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Email

I replied to your email, I don't know if you got it. Thanks Secret ^account 00:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your declined speedy of Shell (mathematics)

I saw that you declined my speedy. That's fine. Someone else has now prodded the article, and after that was removed, taken the article to AfD here. I get the impression you care about deletion, so I thought I'd point the discussion out to you. There's no rescuing the article, though; it's a hoax, but I think that's only obvious to mathematicians. Ozob (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Societism

Hi David, As you can imagine, I know so little about history that even the comments you gave me a year ago took me till now to comprehend. Thanks for your Keeper and OED reference. I found another one in my main reference "Individualism and Societism" by Holbrook. It actually is dead nuts on the subject and even explained why its very word and meaning was in jeopardy by some comparing it to Socialism. This spark made me finally understand why so many of my references were entirely wrong - because that's when it started. It really is a special article if you haven't read it. Anyway, the reference said the The Century Dictionary defines societism as "That theory of government which favors the non-interference of the state in the affairs of individuals; opposed to socialism or collectivism" as well as numerous others like the Manchester School. (boy how that meaning changed!) Would you happen to have access to this dictionary reference or know where I could find it? I would love to read it! And maybe add it to that OR article in place of say, Durkheim, Dafermos, and even Milton Friedman! Freedom2choose (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

that's not the definition of Societism--it's the definition of "individualism," from a standard 19th century dictionary--here's the edition that Holbrook probably used: [7] and the same definition is used in many other dictionaries & sources also, see [8]. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response David. I'll keep looking. Freedom2choose (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I pass on this one. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination)

As you participated in Deletion review/The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University), you may wish to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society (2nd nomination). The story is long and convoluted but there's a timeline at this new AfD. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The Old Borlasian Club

Just thought I'd let you know, the only parts of the above article that are not copied and pasted from the Sir William Borlase's Grammar School article are:

The Old Borlasian's Club, founded 1907, is the Club of former pupils of Sir William Borlase’s Grammar School.

The Old Borlasian Club unites all past members of the school and supports the school in variety of ways. The school magazine is sent to members and an annual dinner and a variety of social and sporting events are held. The club has also established the Sir William Borlase's Grammar School Development Trust to raise money for long-term projects.

For further information, please contact John Barry, Andy Howland or the Old Borasian Club via the school.

The references are all for the school article, not for the club. I have no doubt that an "old boys" club exists as most schools of this age have one. The question is, is it notable? There is absolutely nothing there that says it is. -- role^player 00:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, it probably should not be a separate article, but it did not meet the qualifications for speedy A7. the bulk of the article was a list of notable members--which not surprising is the same as the list of notable alumni which makes up about half the article on the school. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lee Abramson

User:Eeekster was totally wrong of course to BLPPROD this in less than a minute - I found a well documented source almost as quickly. However, I can't see the connection with the pork rinds stuff and I'm suspicious that it's some kind of subtle spam - it leads to rather an odd Facebook or Twitter entry that I wouldn't think Abramson would have had anything to do with.--Kudpung (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

yes indeed the article needs some investigation. That sort of thing is usually a in joke or a prank by an acquaintance--it does not necessarily invalidate the rest of the article. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Were you aware that it is a recreation of an article deleted three times previously? --Kudpung (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed you the explanation of this. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi since you were involved in the discussion, I thought you might want to see this and vote:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranshenasi --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Journal help

DGG, if anyone knows, surely you (well, I'm asking S Marshall also...): what is Lodz Papers in Pragmatism? Who publishes it? Does it still exist? Most importantly: what is its status and authority, and in which field? I ask in relation to a question on Talk:American_exceptionalism#Problems_with_the_lede. Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct title is Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. Its a journal published by the University of Lodz, pISSN 1895-6106, eISSN 1898-4436, published since 2005, included in DOAJ and JGate, indexed in Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts. ed. Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka, Seems respectable. peer-reviewed. see [9]. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ZOHO Corporation

DGG: You deleted a page I created yesterday (the first time I created a new page on wikipedia, i think). You marked it for speedy deletion, and now i don't seem to see the contents of the page. That seems rather disappointing considering you did not even explain what you think should be fixed on this page before flagging it for deletion. Could you please put the page back and add notes in the discussion section of the page about what you would like fixed on this page? I'd be glad to take a stab at what you think is missing. Thanks! ImmortallyTranquil (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I see it does assert importance as a producer of notable software. I did some copyediting to match our usual style, and it will be restored. It could use one or two additional third party references. (The article on the software could use some condensing, btw; it seems somewhat promotional. Id suggest not mentioning minor feature are sentences saying how "great" it is. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring and cleaning-up the page. I agree with your points. I'll try and add some more refs, make it read less promotional. Thank you for your help again. 14:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImmortallyTranquil (talk • contribs)

Nomenclature

Hi David. You may not be aware of the recent ongoing policy discussion and the sudden resulting controversies at Talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall & Talk:Cambridge. I think it might help if experienced editors like yourself, particularly those knowledgeable on policies were to review the situation and either offer some comments, or to advise where to go next. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

since I profoundly disagree with the Wikipedia standard, I'm not going to be of much help with the details. The only correct way is to qualify all place names to the national level, with intermediate levels added as needed, such as the US consistently, and elsewhere as needed for disambiguation. The Library of Congress does just this, except that for the US they use only states, but we're more international. That's right, LC uses Tokyo (Japan) and Mexico City (Mexico) -- two cases where the names are absolutely unique without the area being added. There's an outside standard for large databases, and that's to always add the higher levels. We should follow it, not develop our own except in cases where we need to do so. We serve the readers, and we cannot know what they are looking for. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Guoguo12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guoguo12--Talk--  02:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Laura Massey

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Laura Massey. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion reviewGregsteimel (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

all I ever did was temporarily restore it for discussion at a previous deletion review, and I'll do that again. DGG ( talk ) 13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)