User talk:DGG/Archive 4 May 2007

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


Grand Street[edit]

And why should it be deleted soon? I removed the prod. It should not be reproded. NO reason for speedy deletion that I have seen. And if it goes for AfD might not be deleted. Also, I never said I would improve it! It has been almost 16 years since I lived in NY and more than that since I have been to Brooklyn. I don't remember enough to add anything other than that there is a subway station in the Williamsburg area and in the Queens section of the street is where Dad once had an office. Hardly wiki worthy! 21:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Neil rankin AfD[edit]

National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research[edit]

Re public domain: Good call. I always tag unattributed cut-and-paste, however. The person who did the copying gets an opportunity to quickly fix the problem (a simple attribution would have been sufficient in this case) and an admin gets to have a second look at the page.

I feel that an editor who takes it upon him or herself to copy and paste from external sources has a responsibility to make certain that copy was allowed, and to justify it. Lack of attribution is always a bad sign.  :-) If I had been an admin, I wouldn't have deleted the article outright either-- just tagged it so at least one other pair of eyes could look at it. Coren 16:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Miguel González-Gay[edit]

I do NOT have access to such a science literature database, as my college is quite small and my home computer is quite olde. Can you please get the cite #'s? Bearian 15:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Cross posted to Miguel González-Gay talk page. Bearian 15:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conciliation Project[edit]

I don't follow what you have said here, probably just idiocy on my part. Would you mind going back and explaining it? J Milburn 16:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA[edit]


Vilnija and Kazimieras Garšva returns in ArbCom[edit]

Few months ago you helped mediate a compromise on those pages. Now I am being accussed in an ArbCom case of "Violating WP:LIVING". Since you are a neutral editor already familiar with that case, your comments on whether I indeed violated BLP as User:M.K. is suggesting or not would be much appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was sure it would return; my experience so far in RfCs is that any compromise effected does not last very long. The article on Garsva has held up better than I would have expected; even the one on Vilnija is also doing better than a few I remember trying to help. I do not think what WP would usually regard as RSs exist for this topic--neither the Polish nor the Lithuanian ministries or newspapers take what most people would consider an objective view of things. Given all this, I think your role overall was constructive. I would rather add comments in a day or two, trying to evaluate what others have said. DGG 04:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Interestngly, the articles are rather stable (KG perfectly, Vilnija mostly). It's MK's portrayal of my behaviour as 100% disruptive during those discussions and edits which I'd appreciate if you could comment on. If you agree my input was negative, don't hesitate to write that - but I'd prefer to hear your opinion in addition to MK's. Of course, take your time. And if you have time to look into a RS dispute at Talk:Przyszowice massacre (I am trying to get as many neutral comments as possible before I am forced to try mediation), that would be great, too. Unfortunatly me and my primary opponent there (Irpen) have both pretty much exhausted our arguments and are now getting to close to level of 'you lied! no you lied' for my comfort :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, for writing in your talk but I see particular contributor forgot to add that he continues to removed parts of text which was stable [1] and which foundation was laid by you. If my name is mentioned, I indeed think that presenting not even doubtfully "references" but also preventing cite check, misleadingly suggesting that LIVING policy is not applied as well as mocking from person, violates principles of particular policy. M.K. 12:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)p.s. of course you can state your opinion regarding my presented evidence involving policy, as I remember to some my raised concerns made laugh only [2], and the issue acquired shameful shapes as even it as placed under the line of nations tragedy [3], as these are serious issues I hope that ArbCom committee will scrutinized them.

I'll keep a short response here too, I never said the issue or the edits were in any way laughable. I was responding to a post that called some argument laughable , and I said clearly that I was giving "my own response to that posting, and it is not laughing." I will make a short statement at Arbcom, based on the information presented there. There's no real need to discuss it here as well. DGG 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I did not said that you found it laughable quite contrary, I was pointing to another contributor (who started the same article). If not intervention made by you I would be stuck with article for sure. And I completely agree that no need to discuss evidences here. M.K. 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; just a technical note: from my (limited) experience such a comment belongs at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, in the series of 'Statements by non-parties', not evidence talk.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


Did you see that the tag team User:Moerou toukon and User:Phillip Rosenthal (of the 1855 reference etc fame) are now exposed as making up between them Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freedom skies? RfA going very well, as one would expect. All the best, Johnbod 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Contextual information[edit]

I have noticed that essays, e.g. WP:LISTCRUFT, are often cited in deletion debates, such as the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist Party of Great Britain debates. It might be worthwhile to jot down a concise essay on the value of contextual information, which one could cite so as not to repeat the contextual argument every time. One could argue that such an argument is a natural offspring of policies such as WP:NOT#PAPER and WP:SENSE. Then one could post it as WP:CONTEXT. I am interested in your opinion about this. Stammer 09:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Richard Rawdon Stawell article[edit]

Hi David, I saw you tagged the Richard Rawdon Stawell article I created with a 'speedy deletion' tag, since removed by another Wikipedian. I realise the text came from a public domain Encyclopedia (which was acknowledged in the article with the {{Ausbio}} tag). The intent is to create an intial article based on the Dictionary of Australian Biography which can then be edited and enhanced by other Wikipedians. My belief is that it is better to have an initial article with public domain text (properly acknowledged and referenced) than no article at all. Your thoughts? — Diverman 12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(replied to on his page) I was the one that removed the tag, but in further discussion on the project page, it turns out that this source is possibly not PD in the US. DGG


I suppose since your name is actually your initials, and mine is just a cheesy affectation, I should change my sig to avoid further confusion...  ;_; --DDG 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to go back to my old sig. I doubt the addition of 12 or so characters is going to cripple the Wikipedia servers. Cheers, --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

MfD for WP:CSN[edit]

Thanks for your recent comment at the MfD. I think you're one of the few people who commented on the actual outcome of a specific case (Robdurbar/Wonderfool), as part of the data for your decision! Most people seemed to reason in broad generalities. EdJohnston 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history[edit]

I have responded to your comment on the AfD. Thanks --Aminz 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Beale[edit]

You were involved in this article's Deletion Review. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 18:34Z


I added some questions to your RFA page for you to answer. - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

repeated Afd swinging to delete[edit]

fyi, Ronald Collé has appeared on afd within a week of the last Afd being closed, and is gathering delete votes. John Vandenberg 04:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Well done. Do well with the mop :) -- Samir 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. Your RfA reached WP:100 and is palindromic to boot. :) Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow congrats DGG! 111 supports, that's fantastic - if you ever need anything just give me a shout and I'll try my best to help. Good luck... Majorly (hot!) 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. I'm glad I was one of those 11 extra to push you over the top at Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something. You'll do a great job. Smee 11:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Requests for adminship/MZMcBride[edit]

i think you are mistaken thats what you put on there is from my talkpage not his so do not hold it agaenst him it my falut i admit that i do need to read the guldlines better and i have. i have too if i want to be become a admin in the very far future so it my bad not his okOo7565 18:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Good luck with that --Closedmouth 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Albert Anderegg[edit]

Hi ... Are you an admin now? If so, would you please have a look at this article? I really don't care if it stays or goes, but the five days have expired. Thnx! — 06:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Josh Warner[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Josh Warner. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Shaunco 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Just to clarify, I certainly have no plans to nominate the more notable ones, at the moment I'm simply trying to see what community opinion is on the lesser ones. There's no denying there are many notable members of the Arbuthnot family, but there's also no denying that we have articles on members of the family who do not meet notability guidelines. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 00:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought it better to clarify, given your message on KB's talk page. One Night In Hackney303 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bhaskar Chakraborty[edit]

  • Comment Shoessss , surely there are some reviews or discussions of his work, and you can add them. Even if not in English. (but it helps to give an english translation of a key phrase)DGG 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello User:DGG, I did actually research Bhaskar Chakraborty and found only self-published books that were being offered on Amazon. This in-its-self is not noteworthy. That was the reason that I nominated the article for deletion. However, as you are probably aware, I can only nominate. The rest is a consensus of editors, which I am more than happy to live with.Shoessss 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


That wasn't the point, what is needed is some quote from a book about literature, or from reviews of the poetry-- works 'about his own books. Thats what establishes notability for an author--that someone writes and published : "He is one of the great..." . I asked because you are obviously in a much better position to find them than I, and may perhaps immediately know of some if you know the author's work. Whoever is able should look. One good quote (or even better two) would settle the matter. DGG 01:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I’m sorryDGG I think you are confusing me with the author of the article. I was the one that nominated the article for deletion. The reason for the recommended deletion was just as you pointed out. I could not find any reviews or references other than a MySpace and Self-Published books on Amazon. Hope this clears up the miss understanding. Shoessss 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC) PS: Sorry about


I am about to disappear on a work trip for several days, so please don't take any lack of input during that period as a sign that I've lost interest in WP:N.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


and probably others. I stopped the speedy on him, but it will probably be deleted by someone else if not written more like a typical WP article. They are undoubtedly Notable, but it needs to be clearly shown with references to something objective about them. Even more important, you said you "uploaded" them. If you copied them from a web site or elsewhere, and it is not in the public domain, you cannot do that, and you will need to rewrite them entirely in your own words. Since the articles have been questioned, make sure about this. If it is your own original writing, make sure there are sources. DGG 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? What's this about. I have no idea what you're talking about. --Haemo 07:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I understand now - but I didn't write that article. I was merely commenting on the fact that the speedy was unwarranted. --Haemo 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm pleased to inform you that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. Best of luck — Dan | talk 02:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Well done. Do well with the mop :) -- Samir 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. Your RfA reached WP:100 and is palindromic to boot. :) Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow congrats DGG! 111 supports, that's fantastic - if you ever need anything just give me a shout and I'll try my best to help. Good luck... Majorly (hot!) 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. I'm glad I was one of those 11 extra to push you over the top at Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something. You'll do a great job. Smee 11:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Notability of scientists vs their science[edit]

Hey DGG (first off, congratulations on adminship). In this AfD you write "I cannot imagine that a paper written by a scientist could possibly be notable more than the scientist himself" which seems diametrically opposed to my thinking, so I thought I'd invite you to try entertaining it. If a scientist is notable (in the sense of passing WP:PROF) I would assume it is because their work is notable. Surely then they must be at least a degree more trivial than their work. For example, the Hershey-Chase experiment is a very important piece of science, which definitely belongs in an encyclopedia, but I'm not sure that Alfred Hershey or even more so Martha Chase are of the same level of notability. Similarly, Milikan's Oil-drop experiment important in a way that I just don't think the details of Robert Andrews Millikan's life are. Ditto Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority Study and Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment. In all these cases, the experimenters are certainly notable, but I think they are all less encyclopedic than their work. I guess this is what bothers me about the majority of the stubby little wikipedia entries for assorted professors, that their inclusion makes WP look like a cheap Whos-who unless their work is also encyclopedic. The writers of these bios seem disinterested in writing encyclopedic articles about their research topic, the benefit to WP of these articles does not extend to dissemination of knowledge about science, just the vanity, or vanity by proxy, of a puff-biography. Anyway, best of luck with the mop pushing. I'm certain that you'll do fine. Regards, Pete.Hurd 05:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, & I went back & adjusted the AfD comment,because you are right that I overgeneralized. Fuller reply in the works. DGG 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Abhout copyvio NDMA[edit]


Thanks for cleaning up the NDMA page. The original page is indeed inaccessible but Google has a copy available in its cache: The similarities were too obvious to overlook.

Greetings, bb 09:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New account[edit]

I am not gone. I abandoned this account, if you need me. I will be somewhere.... Retiono Virginian 10:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Wolff response[edit]

In response to your question about the Virginia Wolff article :
To be perfectly honest, I don't know what awards she won. I didn't write the article. My interaction with the article was limited to this :: I had turned it into a redirect to Virginia Woolf when I saw it on new page patrol, the author of the article informed me that they were two different people, I checked on Google and confirmed it, so I undid my redirection and didn't think of that article again until your message. The article appears to have never been pushed past an informal stub -- it either needs improvement or deletion, I agree. I'm not particularly interested in doing it, having no interest in the author, but maybe I'll take a look tonight or tomorrow to see if it is salvageable. -- ArglebargleIV 22:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I updated the Article --National Book Award! DGG
Wow, I see what you've done to the article -- excellent job! Thanks! -- ArglebargleIV 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For hard work overall, and going the extra mile, turning to-be-deleted articles into respectability! ArglebargleIV 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your message here[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your message. Let me first apologise for the late reply ... I had failed to notice your post until just now. I saw that I had new messages when I made an edit about half an hour after your post, but didn't check my talk page as I was heading to sleep. When I clicked on "last change" the next morning, it took me to the post right after yours.

After a bit of thought, I've come to agree with you that this is "a good time". Since I do a lot of wikignoming already, I think I could help out with the admin backlogs. If you'd still consider (co-)nominating me now, I will accept. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thanks again, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have started a page here for your viewing and will attempt to address the rest of the questions as soon as I can. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've finished the page if you want to look it over. However, I don't think I should try for RfA right now as I am still on a wikibreak. I am spending most of my time at a friend's house and cannot devote any to Wikipedia for now. I'll be around for just a few hours today and may remain generally inactive for another week or so. I just wanted to let you know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I skimmed through the RfC and the ArbCom case and will be sure to check in on those again when I return. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm back ... Would you be ready to do the nom soon? Mangojuice has also offered to co-nom, so I figured I'd stop dawdling. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing SD tag on Eileen Crimmins[edit]

I understand that it says, "remove if you plan to improve the article" but this is the second time that you have removed an SD tag from that article without imrpoving it. The article was a clear copyright violation. Why not let an administrator delete it? Then, let the original author take some time to rewrite it without plagarizing and submit a better article. Why the vested stake in this article? I understand you want to help a new user and I applaud that. But would you have reacted the same to a different article? Why not let the procedure run its course? --Cyrus Andiron Flag of Indiana.svg 13:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

replied on his talk p. I removed the tag when I removed the copyvioDGG 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles George Arbuthnot[edit]

Oh, well done. Just what was required. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Enrique A Pollack \ Henry Pollack[edit]

Could you please review my new article on this subject and support its inclusion.. I have re-written it and added aditional sources. Thanks Callelinea 02:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi there, DGG. I noticed you posted that phylogenetics was something you were interested in. Could you have a look over the relevant parts of the evolution page and make any corrections that are needed? If you had any other comments or suggestions the peer-review page is Wikipedia:Peer review/Evolution/archive1. Thanks! TimVickers 03:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Uh, sure dude. I can't think of a reason why I would be against that. Is there a reason I should be against that? Lol.--PericlesofAthens 17:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Actually it was correctly placed, the editor moved the article into userspace and failed to remove it, and the categories for that matter.... One Night In Hackney303 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the history of the page. For example I moved this page into projectspace to save it from pending deletion, and obviously I couldn't copy and paste it due to GFDL issues. I'm not even convinced he's a real person yet, as I've yet to find any mention of him anywhere online, and I've lacked the time to do any offline research. One Night In Hackney303 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wladislaw Taczanowski[edit]

Place replace the prod the question is not WP:N it is WP:V I have searched Google (web and book) and all I find for Wladislaw Taczanowski is mirrors, simular names, different birth and death dates. If he was an elected member of Reichstag (institution) he would be notable, but I have found nothing outside of this article that he is even a real person. Jeepday (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I found it easily enough in Google, referring me to Google Books, and I added the ref. Since they add things to G.b. continually, it might not have been there when you looked. I was fairly confident there would be something, because the article came from the de WP: they don't always list sources, but I have yet to catch them in a mistake. They aren't a mirror of us, their article was written in Jul 05 and our page translated in Sept. 05DGG 02:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I might have missed it on my search, I don't read German and and it took me while reviewing the reference you found to figure out it was the same guy, they have the birthday listed as 12 Aug 825 not 1825 (scanning issue), also the "Die Mitglieder der Reichstag 1867-1880" does not match any dates in the article. So I would have ruled this out as a matching reference on a quick scan. Jeepday (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
That it does. Thanks Jeepday (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

what would you do with Ahmoi[edit]

I saw your aborted prod on an online dating site that happens to be on my watchlist (because I reverted spam or vandalism at one point or another).. and I thought I'd ask your opinion on Ahmoi, which is another dating site article. The site gets very few Google hits, and the article has been the battleground for a very long revert-war between two editors.. (with an occasional good Samaritan like me dropping in.. ). Before my last edit on the page, there were claims that it was "the first Online Community in Malaysia that filtered 'adult' content" - however, the site's TOS explicitly states that content is not filtered.. My inclination is to nominate it for deletion. I don't think it qualifies for speedy-delete, and my knowledge of prod/afd is a bit weak.. What would you suggest? --Versageek 05:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)



David, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday; and for your comments in support of my sig. In the end, it seemed easiest and least disruptive to change it back. Please feel free to drop me a line any time if I can help you in any way. Pastordavid 15:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

David, thanks for helping me distinguish what I needed to do with Fechnerian psychophysics. I edited it a bit and added a tag for contact instead. Bearian 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


I'll put more inf in when I can get at it, which will be in a day or two, as my subscriptions irritatingly don't work from home. I could cobble together some publications from OLIS. If you think it's likely to be a problem, in future I can always wait to have more information to hand before creating the stubs. HeartofaDog 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. In this case at least, problem solved, but I shall certainly take you at your word in future if need be. The basis for the comment on NM is not v substantial, so prob best left off. HeartofaDog 01:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

User Dtbrown ( has edited the main Jehovah's Witness page contrary to discussion on the talk page. He also removed a request for verification of the declarative language of his edit. I am asking that you help with this problem. Regards, Marvin Shilmer 03:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

commented on your talk page and the article talk page.DGG 04:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your straightforward advice. Regards, Marvin Shilmer 05:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Scott[edit]

As it appears that you have become an administrator, you might consider taking a look at this deleted article. I saw it on PROD a while back but never got around to doing anything about it before it was gone. It should probably not have been deleted. Pharamond 05:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually I have access through my library. I remember thinking about whether to rewrite the article (problematic when the DNB entry is so short, as it comes dangerously close to plagiarism), just source it, or something else. I ended up doing nothing, and the next time I thought about the article, it was already gone. Pharamond 06:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As you probably understand, I looked at it only very quickly and superficially at the time. Speaking of the DNB: if you happen to have any interest in the Scottish enlightenment, The Select Society is an article in severe need of expansion, as I just pointed out in an AFD debate on one of its members. It has one of those group articles in the DNB and lists many references, in case one wants to avoid being directly dependent on the DNB itself. Pharamond 06:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Anthony Freeman[edit]

I've changed the tag in the article Ralph Anthony Freeman to an AfD. The point is that this person is not a notable figure – his only claim to fame appears to be his notable father and grandfather. The article does actually cite its sources for the very limited information it provides: there is a mention of Anthony in his father's biography in the external site referenced. Unless the original author of the article can demonstrate Anthony's notability in line with Wikipedia guidelines, then the article should be deleted. Do you not agree? -- MightyWarrior 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome. I was experimenting with my 'skin' on WP and somehow cannot change it back! I go onto my preferences but then the tab will not work. Sorry to ask, I just wondered if you had any tips. Thanks Mrsradcliffe23 11:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

List of the writings of William Monahan[edit]

Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again. As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again. Also, billdeancarter has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair. WhiteKongMan 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll look of course. I think its always appropriate to notify those who participated before. Otherwise it might even look like an attempt to find a completely different quorum. DGG 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum Help[edit]


I need help defending my position on the Kaymakli Monastery article. I am wondering if you can provide suggestions or help. I feel I am being unfairly bashed, and goal of some editors is not only to remove Armenian Genocide reference, but Armenian name and content on the monastery. Hetoum I 17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks again for wise words and helping me calm down - I think I get overly eager hurting my own case sometimes. I think I may have been rash towards Tom. I just apologized to him, and I'm trying to take it step by step on talk page. Can you see if I spoke appropriate on Tom's talk and also Kaymakli Monastery talk page correctly. I am sorry, but I always feel like a newbie on this. P.S. Is it maybe more helpful to speak over email? Sincerely, Hetoum I 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC). Yes. I've lost your address but mine is enabled. DGG 22:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head. Aquarius • talk 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Novels WikiProject[edit]

Book collection.jpg

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Okay, and sorry :-) Tintin 07:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Best Userbox Contest[edit]

Hi... It wasn't in WP space when I prodded it. An editor moved it afterwards. --Rrburke(talk) 20:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with what's permissible in WP space. I didn't know until this page move that such stuff existed. There's a remarkable abundance of junk in this space. I'll have a look at MFD. Thanks. --Rrburke(talk) 21:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA[edit]

I'm back, and I'm mildly sorry about the confusion regarding my conomination of your RFA. Obviously, it didn't matter in the end. Best regards. YechielMan 21:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, I'm sorry I missed it while on a WikiBreak. I support you promotion, even though I didn't !vote. Best, Smmurphy(Talk) 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Project On Emerging Nanotechnologies[edit]

I nominated this to be speedied WP:CSD#g11 because the creator stated in his edit summary that he is "the project coordinator for this organization," and because the text read like a promotional brochure, which to me made it advertising. Even when the spam and spammy tone were removed, there was still a problem with WP:COI and [WP:NOR]] because of the creator's relation to the project.

As to its notability, the problem for me is that even its current form, the article still doesn't attempt to satisfy the primary criterion for establishing notability by demonstrating that the organization "has been the subject of secondary sources... [which are] reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." Right now, the only sources for the article are (uncited) rewritings of primary sources. But these, the guideline states, "may be used to add content" only "[o]nce notability is established". It's reasonable to infer from looking at its sponsors that the organization is notable, but that to me was a separate question from whether notability had been established in the article. It hadn't -- and hasn't, because no attempt has been made to do so. --Rrburke(talk) 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC) -- replied on your page, & we'll see what the others think at AfD. DGG 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi... I think I must not have got the tone of my post quite right, because I've inadvertently given you the impression that I'm arguing with you, when in fact it was more my intention to confirm from a more experienced user that I was getting the application of the notability criteria right. Anyone can read the criteria off a page, but understanding their customary application requires more experience than I've got.
So let me first apologize if there was anything combative or critical in my tone -- there wasn't meant to be -- and put the question as I should have done in the first place: am I wrong in thinking that, without citing any secondary sources, an article about an organization hasn't yet satisfied the primary criterion for establishing notability, and that primary sources can't be used to add content until that primary criterion has been satisfied, however reasonably we might infer from its sponsors that the organization is obviously notable? --Rrburke(talk) 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • DDG wrote: Just put in 6 refs, and a few of their publications.
See now, that's just about what I was gonna do, just to prove I'm a mensch. --Rrburke(talk)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works)[edit]

I'm working on a policy addition to the above policy page at the head of the Bibliographies section. I would like it if you could take a look at it, fine tune it if you can, so that it could have more consensus. Hopefully this will clarify a pro-bibliography position at Wikipedia.-BillDeanCarter 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, pro-bibliography is nonsensical, but the question is what is a legitimate bibliography as an individual article? I think simply one that causes aesthetic problems in the main article for the notable subject.-BillDeanCarter 02:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that's only one of many factors, and by no means the most important. I rate notability and NOR higher than aesthetics, and if there are not pre-existing independent sources discussing just what should be on the list, there is no basis for an article. See the list of examples I just posted to the MOS talk p. DGG 03:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry if it seems we're tripping over each other. I'm not trying to make extra work for you. I think there's probably an unavoidable tendency to get kind of callous(ed) if you spend any time on new page patrol -- you begin to feel like the Little Dutch Boy, except you've got all ten fingers in the dike, or like Lucy in the chocolate factory. You, or at any rate I, tend to start judging articles as they are: the subject quite possibly might be notable, but when the article lacks an assertion of notability you start to speedy them almost by reflex, because in the time it takes you to hunt up secondary sources, which the creator ought to have done himself if he expected the article to survive, other users have created forty new articles on porn stars, "cool" websites, the girls who sit next to them in math class, or their dogs. You end up feeling like Arnaud-Amaury at Béziers, wanting to delete everything and shout Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius! --Rrburke(talk) 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • DGG wrote: there's another trap that I have not yet fallen into--deleting an article as empty when someone maliciously blanked it.
Ack! Did I nominate one of those, or are you just warning me of a pitfall to avoid? --Rrburke(talk) 15:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Crucifer (disambiguation)[edit]

Hello, I have opened an AfD discussion for Crucifer (disambiguation). Please read the rationale I have posted at Talk:Crucifer (disambiguation) and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crucifer (disambiguation). Vectro 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

i'd appreciate your opinion on something[edit]

Have a look at Talk:Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Before I start an AFD, do you think this is below the cut? ··coelacan 07:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be great; thanks. ··coelacan 00:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Need you to get back to a couple of articles[edit]

Hi DGG, you once left me a message of support on my watch of Global Panel Foundation and Prague Society for International Cooperation. You said I could ask you for help if I needed it. Well, I need it now. I'm running out of steam (ie patience) and now there's a more aggressive user defending his right to keep the original self-serving text. Can you please take a look there? I also left a note at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Need help on a couple of vanity articles, where it was suggested to take it to AfD but we've been there before. Thanks a lot. --maf (talk-cont) 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, DGG, I understand you are having some communications probs at the moment, but may I ask you if you are going back to review Prague Society for International Cooperation? I've left it untouched all this time, even seeing the db tag come and go. Thanks. --maf (talk-cont) 18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm back online, and I took a look; the first step is to ask for exact references & translations, & I did so on both pages. DGG 01:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mortgage Industry Advisory Corporation[edit]

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you deleted this. The article was removed from CAT:CSD, and edited to assert notability. Someguy1221 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC) -- replied improved while in process, m apologies. DGG

Van Resistance[edit]

Hi, I think I need help now with the Van Resistance article. If you could take a look at my version:

The user keeps reverting back to his version without talking first. Adds back poor grammar, unsourced information, etc ... Hetoum I 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

George Parker Winship[edit]

:) Saw your change to George Parker Winship I will grant you that "the most important university library in the United States." would probably address the notability for {{db-bio}}. But do you think that might be border line POV for an unreferenced statement? Also considering the article has been unreferenced since Dec 2005 it has been failing WP:V for a long time. Jeepday (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good night Jeepday (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Syntactic methods[edit]

See what talk? [4] Jeepday (talk) 23:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Denis Smyth[edit]


I've had a bit of a further look into Denis Smyth, as you suggested, and I'm still not certain that he passes WP:PROF. Sure, he's published a lot, but I can't find any evidence that anything that he's published is particularly notable or important. It doesn't help that there seem to be many Denis Smyths, which makes G-searching a little tricky. He might have edited those formerly classified documents, but there's nothing there as to what percentage of the work he did (100%? 0.1%), or why or if those documents were important. Additionally, I have not been able to find any non-trivial third-party references apart from library catalogues and the like.

Perhaps I worded my original comment in the AfD poorly, but I'll stick to my guns at this point. If the article can be sourced and referenced, so that notability is demonstrated, I'll be happy to change my opinion to "Keep", however.

Best Regards, Lankiveil 02:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC).

Peter Bearman[edit]

Good job! Maybe I should just start listing them on your talk page instead of tagging them? Seriously I am working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and I try and fix a lot of articles, but some just can't be made well and others don't look to me like they should be on Wikipedia. If you have a suggestion on how to we can work together to eliminate the AfD and prod step on articles that turnout to be savable, I would like to hear it. I believe Wikipedia:There is no deadline but I also appreciate that WP:V is there for a reason. An article that has been unreferenced and tagged that way for over a year... well you can't save them all and some of them need to go. I do try and reference anything that looks remotely savable (Peter's resume just screamed WP:Vanity to me). P.S. the goal of Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is to ensure that articles meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reference. So if you come up behind me on a speedy or prod and can find anything, resembling a reference (no blog stuff) I won't be at all upset if you swap my tag for your reference. Jeepday (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

George Azariah up for AfD[edit]

Hi. An article we both seem to have prod'ed is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Azariah. Come by and have your say. --Dynaflow babble 03:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What's your view?[edit]

You had some insightful observations along the way during the recent excitement at WP:N, so I was curious as to your thoughts on the developments.--Kubigula (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. We haven't hit an impasse recently - things seems to be moving along pretty constructively. In fact, it's been almost too collegial and constructive; I half expect villagers with torches at any moment.--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sydney Cohen[edit]

Thanks. I have left the notice below on User talk:^demon, but would welcome your assistance if it does not work. "Can you please undelete Sydney Cohen. He clearly passes WP:PROF, being a Fellow of the Royal Society as is noted in the article."- Newport 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sydney Cohen Restoration[edit]

YesY Done ^demon[omg plz] 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Everything can be sourced from Who's Who.--Newport 11:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Did not do what a contributer claimed I had done[edit]

I did not remove any prod or other from any article I created. Someone else must have done that. Anyway, check R. S. Wenocur on Google Scholar; Wenocur's work has helped me considerably in my own consulting and works with many prominent people. I had planned to work on the article, just as other did for Alice Isen, who happens to be Wenocur's first cousin and confidante. But it was speedily deleted and could not add to or improve the article, and received an unjust accusation. Alfred Legrand 05:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

thanx for cleaning up. the lemma is much better now. Aborvegyro 06:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Leila Khatami[edit]

Hi, I can't see myself why being the daughter of someone famous makes her famous, she's clearly not notable for her maths. I've seen many article deleted because they consisted of "X is the son of famous Y" type content. Have I missed a change in policy? If so how many generations should be allowed? Presumably if this logic is followed and Ms Katami has children, then an article like "Ali Katami is the grandson of Mohammed Khatami..." would be acceptable too. I would be grateful if you could point me to the policy you have followed in encouraging restoration of this article, thanks. jimfbleak 11:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes please about citation count[edit]

Please yes a citation count would be good. I suspect the count will be high. Wenocur's major work includes the VC-paper, joint with Dudley which established values of VC-dimensions using hyperplanes and other techniques that were new. The paper with Salant is notable work. Her work on order statistics was new. in abstracting ideas of Einstein and Bose on gravitation as gravitation affecting numbers not particles. In other papers, the alternative proof techniques of identities were publically admired by H.S. Wilf. The indices of many books on neural nets contain references to her work with Dudley on VC-dimension. I personally have employed the order statitistic work and the VC work to analyze data and make predictions for clients. Currently, she is either self-employed or retired or semi-retired; she is not a young person, certainly over age 55. She corresponds with me, a humble consultant, but also with others who are noteable. I think she is tutoring now, also she mentioned, precocious children, and those who need to learn VC-theory for their work at universities or industry or consulting. I think she is also using mathematics for investment counseling in new ways. She won several awards from the U.S. Senate, the President of Temple University, New York City as a noteable woman of science and other awards. This is all I can think of, offhand, right now. Back to work now. Thank you. Alfred Legrand 16:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sami Brady Roberts[edit]

Hello DGG.

Please answer on my talk page. Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


For some reason you are the 2nd person this week to question my status, and opposing my judgment to become an administrator, without anyfacts I think is quite ungentlemanly. I wish you withdraw such a damaging and slanderous comment, otherwise I ask you for evidence from where you have jumped to your conclusion.


Real name[edit]

Hi. I was interested in your remark that you would have used your real name all along if you had understood Wiki better. What did you mean by this? I did it the other way around, I used my real name at first and then decided I should go incognito like others do, so changed my name. What do you think is the advantage of using the real name?

Sardaka 10:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I originally didn't use my name because I saw that other people didn't either & I intended to work in a field where I would be recognized; I was uncomfortable about appearing to hide, and so used a slight variant of my initials. Eventually I realized that I would still be recognized by anyone who knew me. I saw people whom I greatly respected using their real names, even when working in controversial fields or in ways that exposed them to possible attack, and not coming out the worse for it. I then put my real name in an inconspicuous place, and a little while before my RfA I moved it to a more conspicuous location, & filled in the details of my bio; this was partly because of the EssJay business. I now feel totally comfortable with it. Another factor is that I sometimes post on the WP-en mailing list, & most (but not all) people there use their full name. DGG 08:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I hope I am not butting in, but I am a great proponent of using real names, creditentials and referencing them as best as possible. Essjay controversy is a good example of why this should be done; but primarily I agree with academic studies on anonymity and the net: anonymity discourages good contributions; using real names means you will think twice about what you write and thus raises the level of discussion and contribs. Personally I would make name disclosure obligatory for admins and anybody in any position of responsibility on this project.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter Brinsden[edit]

Think that article should be AfD'ed? --Whsitchy 21:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, makes sense. On a side note, your talk page is a little... big.--Whsitchy 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


In another note (left you a msg at the old arb com discussion above), have you thought about archiving your talk? My personal cap is at 100 headings. You can automate archival with User:Werdnabot (or its successors).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD Kennedy Funding et al[edit]

Hi, DGG. I had a good hunt around for SSs and press coverage for this group and couldn't find any that were independent, which seemed odd. Lots of press releases, but not one story. I didn't feel I could rewrite them without locating any sources besides those traceable to the company or its paid agents. --Rrburke(talk) 19:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two Christopher Clarks[edit]

Hello DGG,

You've added a lot of good material on Christopher Clark, but it's a different CC. Confusingly, there are two historians called CC. The one you refer to is an Americanist and is not Australian. The original subject of the article is an Australian born scholar of modern german history.

My suggestion to fix this up would be to create a new article called something like Christopher Clark (Americanist) place your new content there, and restore the original article. The original article needs expansion to refer to his many other books and TV appearances btw, (just in case you have a little free time). best CoughInInk

According to the LC catalog, there is
  • Clark, Christopher, 1953- the Americanist, and
  • Clark, Christopher M. , the Germanist, for whom they don't give dates, who I suppose is the Australian.

It is usually a little clearer if they both have middle initials, so I'm going to look a little more, & move the content with the proper links.--I will let you know. Thanks for clearing this up. DGG 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the M is for Munro I think, though he does not seem to use this initial in his bylines, and for that reason it might be preferable to disambiguate them by subfield of history rather than by middle initial, but I will defer to your judgement as a librarian. best, CoughInInk


Hi, the assumption is that I'm "pro" the blogs I'm currently fighting to keep an entry for, but that is jumping to conclusions. I wrote many new entries on Muslims and Islam, and I would fight to keep them. They're there because I think it's important people have access to information about these issues. In any case, a pattern won't be seen since this user first did a "speedy delete" on several entries using an IP and only identified themselves when I argued that an anonymous user shouldn't be speedy deleteing (to point out that it's against wiki policy and an ip user shouldn't be discriminated). The reason I went out directly against him is because of his claim that he's being attacked for something he's only been doing for "two-three" days, and of course, looking at his "user contributions" that's what it looks like, so why accuse him? I am not accusing him that he's anti those blogs, I'm accusing him of abusing the system and I don't like it. As I wrote him directly, his only contributions are nitpicking those of others. I think that's anti-wikipedia behavior.

I think blogs are in a catch 22, since old style newspapers have no interest in writing about them, and at most they'll reach the editorial page. Most blogs are not worthy of an entry, but I just wonder how many entries are going to be deleted before the policy is changed.

About the Fjordman blogger, for example. When the original speedy delete came up I said that if you google, it comes up in amazing numbers. To which I was told by this user "it's a common name in Scandinavia". But then, why does the blogger get top billings on the first 3-4 pagse of Google (at which time I gave up looking). What do I need to do to prove that this guy is immensely popular? Misheu 06:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am having comunications problems, so please do not expect regular answers until Wednsdday May 30. Thanks for your suggestions and input. I do need somebody with some common sense to tell me this :-) I'm not so anti what you say as you think. When I told this user that I actually appreciated his speedy delete since it caused me to look up sources he thought I was joking and took it as an insult. I wouldn't be so "up in arms" this time if it wouldn't be posed as "look up all sources now for all entries or else" and come as a 'second wave'. There are so many other ways to approach articles you think need sources. Again, some of the entries he brought for deletion, i agree with, but most of them he's going against established, well known, influential blogs. Misheu 06:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for your help in this recent mess. I appreciate the good words helping move this process forward. --Edwin Herdman 21:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

MaxSem RfA thanks.jpg

Hi DGG. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 21:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA nomination[edit]

I have been nominated to be an admin. If you support me, please indicate so on the RFA page. Thank you.

superbfc [ talk | cont ]23:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kay Körner[edit]

Hi DGG, thanks for the guidance. I guess my interpretation of the policy was that claiming to have won only a local club level competition was speediable under A7. Just noticed the same thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Stewart. I'll take it to AFD. --JayHenry 00:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC) (and it was eleted here- replied further on your talk page) DGG

I see AfD agreed with you, or at least the first two people to look at it did. --well, that's what AfD is for. (smile)
Until this I had never thought about an assertion of a local competition possibly not counting as an assertion for purposes of A7--I continue to think it should count, for "local" is always debatable, even if the item at hand probably wouldn't show relevance at AfD; I'll discuss it on the talk page for WP:CSD. -- so thanks for sending it, & for starting the discussion.
Sometime it's an Interesting question what counts as local anyway: for Rebecca Stewart, I conceivably might have said A7 partly because the source was MySpace, & partly because it was high school. --peripheral things like that do have an influence But if she had won the State competition I wonder if it still would have been A7
As for Kay Korner, I think you gave a good argument for delete, the not for speedy. I'm certainly not going to follow it up as a particular case, unlike the general question. DGG 20:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
DGG, thanks for your thoughtful response. I see your point and largely agree, but on a practical level I worry that if AFD became filled with Kay Korner type autobiographies then the dozens of articles that need saved would get missed amid the chaff. I hardly know a single person who hasn't won some award or medal in their life; on a practical level they can't all be considered assertions of notability. Again, thank you for the guidance. --JayHenry 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Howard Mumford Jones[edit]

I found a couple references for Howard Mumford Jones looks like a candidate for one of your make overs if you get bored. Jeepday (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Union Party[edit]

This page has been nominated for AfD before. However, nothing much has been done to improve it (I am not an expert on the topic so I cannot be bold and improve it) since it was kept. I have added a tag at the top and mentioned what needs doing on the talk page, but I doubt anything will be done- when it was first nominated for AfD, there was a rush of edits, but since being kept t, this has stopped again. Do you think it should go on AfD? During the last discussion, someone thought it should be a Speedy Delete. I am inclined to agree:

  • It is a stub.
  • It contains very little information.
  • Despite the page existing for a few years, relatively few edits have been made, by only a few editors. This shows how the page's subject could possibly hinder the page's viability.

Please read the page and list it for AfD if you see fit, I do not want to do this in case I am "barking up the wrong tree." Thank You for considering this. Dewarw 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

answered at the talk page for Liberal Union Party. In summary, 5% of the vote is notable, in spite of being a stub.DGG 22:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes[edit]

You voted twice; I struck out your second vote but if you'd rather strike out your first, I guess that's probably OK – Gurch 08:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources in Serials crisis[edit]

Can you provide a source for this edit? I know the whole article is badly sourced right now, but we have to start somewhere, and your interesting addition leaves the reader craving for more :-). Please don't take this as a criticism, I'm asking you because I know some of your good work. Rl 10:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I'm looking forward to reading what you got :-). Rl 20:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review[edit]

No, my making the decision unilaterally was not the idea at all. The idea was to put forward a solution that would end a discussion that has become increasingly acrimonious, and become a proxy for a whole other debate (amongst the editors who are already part of the ongoing arbitration committee request), and that I hope the original editor of the original articles will be happy with, and happy to use as a basis for expansion. I'd like to help and to encourage Bookworm857158367, who was clearly contributing in good faith. My hope was that that the proposal would allow xem, and other editors, to return to and to continue to contribute on the subject that xe wants to write about, whilst avoiding becoming involuntarily embroiled in the other discussion, which can continue at the RFC and arbitration pages. I also hoped that Bookworm857158367 would have a chance to comment on whether xe found the proposed solution acceptable. I see that that there wasn't the opportunity for that. I'll have a word on xyr talk page. Uncle G 11:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on his talk p.,, apologizing for tone. DGG 16:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


on my Talk page. :) User_talk:Joie de Vivre#Questioning Joie de Vivre 22:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Thanks anyway -- I guess I'm not as ready for adminship as I thought. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Sorry about that. I recreated it and put it in your userspace to give you the chance to fix the copyvio problems. User:DGG/Libra (Academic Search) Ocatecir Talk 04:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Blah if you want to undelete go for it. Right now though it does read as promotional. Its up to you though :) —— Eagle101Need help? 04:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
now in mainspace, rewritten entirely, but just a stub. DGG 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


hi David - I'd be interested in what you have to say about this DRV. Original AfD here. I'm concerned about the direction the overall project is going regarding deletion. Tvoz |talk 16:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help[edit]

Thank you for your review on the Chinese American Food Society from last week. It was saved from deletion earlier today. I really apprecaited it. Chris 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Romney Middle School[edit]

Thank you for bringing to my attention the deficiencies in my original article about Romney Middle School - I appreciate your intentions and sentiments, if not your tone, in trying to improve the overall quality of Wikipedia. I am new to this format and am trying hard to learn as quickly as I can. I originally got involved when correcting an error in another article about Romney, West Virginia- - under Historic sites regarding the Old Romney High School information concerning the date mentioned on which the new middle school opened. I corrected this and made a link to the [school's history] on its website of which I am the webmaster. [5] As such, I have done quite a bit of research on the topic. The WP message stated that I could also write an article about this topic which I decided to do and to include photos. I noticed that there was a corresponding article about the county high school, Hampshire High School (West Virginia)-, so I can't imagine why you would think that an article about the middle school would not be valid for WP, also. If there is a conflict because I am also the web author, then whom should I expect to write the article? I have tried to present only impartial, verifiable information and referenced my [original sources] which appear on the school website.[6] I also cleaned up the template format and added both internal cross-references to other WP articles and made external links to other sites that can back-up or expand upon my information. I also deleted the deletion tag that you inserted. I hope this meets with your approval now. I obviously do not have as much time to devote to exploring amd critiquing WP as you do. I have a full-time teaching job and a part-time jobs as the web master and as an online educational course facilitator. I am getting ready to change jobs next year to become a technology integration specialist for the school system. I am passionate about the use of technology in education and value the WP site as one resource that I can access, so, of course, I wish it to be accurate and fair, but I find your comments in the articles and discussions that I read to be rather condescending at times. While you "poopoo" your own spelling weaknesses and typos, you seem to imply that your intellectual powers and judgement are above most of the rest of us. I may not have a Ph.D., but I do have an advanced degree and many hours of technology training in different aspects of the field. I do value my reputation and work hard to improve myself and my work. To that end, I thank you for your role in forcing me to improve my efforts. Salkire 19:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Salkire

Tilting @ windmills?[edit]

Hello ... I stumbled across the first of these the other day on WP:NPP as a stub that I was about to tag for WP:CSD#A7:

Please see that talk pages and histories ... the first one has been deleted and restored once already, and digging some more led to the other two.

As you know, I've got a "thang" about WP:A, especially when I see absolutely no WP:RS whatsoever, just ELs to the subject's website, but before I waste any more time with this, I figured I'd better get the opinion of an admin ... I'm currently up to my cojones in the feces arising from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Paul Ulrich (which is a "kill it before it grows" situation), but these are legacy articles, created before we became quite so anal retentive about WP:Verifiability, i.e., requiring multiple WP:RS secondary sources.

I mean, I can hear the arguments already:

  1. Bust (magazine) has been published since 1993, so it is notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
  2. Debbie Stoller is the publisher of notable magazine, so she is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources
  3. "Stitch 'n Bitch" has been the subject of multiple books by a notable author, so it is also notable, regardless of lacking reliable secondary sources

So, should I simply try to forget that I ever saw these articles and just MOVE ON? Thnx! — 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

replied on your page. It usually doesn't pay to crusade to remove a borderline article that will be defended. I've done so, & it simply isn't worth it in aggravation--it's getting involved in other people's causes, when we all have enough of our own. There's enough obvious junk that cannot be defended, and my preference is to go from the bottom. DGG 00:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy was no longer an option for beau coup reasons; I just mentioned that in the context of the earlier stub of the first one when I encountered it on NPP (sorry for the confusion) ... the query was about the prospects of an AfD for any of them based on lack of WP:A, but since I originally asked, I have decided to just Walk Away from this one. :-) — 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing deletions[edit]

I don't see anything wrong with closing AfD discussions if:

  • The vote is unanimously keep/speedy keep
  • The nominator withdraws (usually as a result of the above)
  • The article is deleted but the discussion is still open

Those are the only times that I ever close deletion discussions, and I see no problem with non-admins like myself doing it. WP:DPR#NAC seems to suggest that such non admin closures are okay. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

only for unanimous or almost-unanimous keeps, but there seems to be a discussion going on, so we can talk about it at the Deletion Process talk. DGG 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Hmm, I didn't even realize there was any dispute. I ran into the article while reading some articles about Tesla and a prod seemed warranted. When I have time I'll take a more detailed look at it. JoshuaZ 00:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Micronation Wikiproject[edit]

I've published a proposal to gauge the level of interest in setting up a micronation Wikiproject, which I thought might be of interest to you based on your past contributions. Comments and suggestions are welcome: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Micronations --Gene_poole 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Marco Casagrande[edit]

Before you judge this person and his associates article worthy, you should check the contribution history. There is a serious astroturfing campaign going on here. They should not be rewarded for this. It's spam. DarkAudit 04:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

William Pietri also sees it for an astroturfing campaign. I've submitted a checkuser request and asked the Wikiproject people to have a look per his suggestions. DarkAudit 05:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The admins are aware that something unseemly may be afoot, so I'm comfortable that they can take care of any shenanigans the rest of the night. I can pick up any leftover pieces and send to AfD in the morning if necessary. :) DarkAudit 05:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks much! I appreciate your help. The quantity of self-published information by the individual has me concerned. There's also a Dr sears (talk · contribs) who's been jumping into the discussion at Talk:Juice Plus. I'm not certain whether or not it's the same guy, but things are already complicated enough, with two warring factions arguing on the page, and he hasn't been helping matters. Anyway, I look forward to whatever you can dig up! --Elonka 08:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sovereign wealth fund[edit]

Hmm, well I saw the term in the Economist, and there are links to this article. There also is a link to a Morgan Stanley report on the subject. Isn't that enough? I added a refernces part in the end to make it more obvious though. -Kristod (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Foresight Institute: Your COI tag[edit]

Hi DGG. In March you tagged this article for COI. Since WP ought to be decisive, and since three months is long enough for reliable sources to be added (it has none), do you think it's time for an AfD nomination? I've three reasons to suggest this:

  1. It's your tag
  2. At WT:COI there have been complaints about use of the COI template, and I identified a 300-element 'COI backlog'
  3. I have noticed that you often try to save articles marked for deletion. If you agree it should go then there is a definite case for AfD.

I know that Foresight Institute has an air of importance, and they sponsor conferences, but Google does not find any journalists writing about them, and Google Scholar couldn't find any references to them in peer-reviewed articles. (I didn't go all the way to the end of the search). Let me know what you think! If you don't recommend AfD, I would accept removal of the COI tag as a solution, with or without addition of a notability tag. EdJohnston 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

They have published quite a lot of things by now; their essential business activity seems to be selling reports and running conferences. Their latest conference is cosponsored with the Society of Manufacturing Engineers and IEEE, which shows mainstream acceptance, and they do get distinguished speakers including from the present Administration, so there are political ties. What will be necessary to look for is references to their conferences and reports, but this is likely to be in the reports literature. The best index for this is a specialized web index called Scirus -- there's some COI here, because I'm one of their academic advisors :)
I am not sure I agree with you about COI tags--my personal feeling is that they can be left indefinitely as a warning--but I see there's a long discussion at the COI talk p., & I'll join it. What I have been saying at AfD, but I'm not sure its the majority opinion, is that we should take good content wherever we can get it. There are on the contrary side some well-establshed people who think spamming should be discouraged by throwing them all out regardless.
For these guys, I'll cut down the adjectives & add some links, and I have one ref--a Masters thesis found is Scirus, but that's all I can do now; I wouldn't nominate them for AfD, because a good case could be made for them. I just put a COI tag on another group, Center on Nanotechnology and Society, but they're sponsored by Illinois Institute of Technology and are also probably N.
Curious. It's an absolutely valid & important field, but a large percentage of those doing it are peacocks. Maybe it's because there is money available. DGG 19:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Falcon[edit]

Says he is ready for that RFA nom, and said that I should notify you. I started it, it's at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Black Falcon. Cheers! Mangojuicetalk 20:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Teutonic Order[edit]

Sorry for the late reply. I am in Europe at the present time and I check my messages only once every few days. I will look into this matter when I come back, but as far as I can remember, I translated the information from the Polish wikipedia.

Norum 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Claude Dauphin[edit]

Fair enough to change the speedy. I am trying to learn the ins and outs of this whole process. I am watching it. Thanks! --Stormbay 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


We need more people who actually care about what any of the rules say. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Calculation of faculty size from student-faculty ratio on Deborah C. Blue AfD[edit]

Dean & Senior VP of the college at a extremely small college (enrollment 345). Since the class ratio is 15:1, that=23 faculty in all

Hi DGG, just figured I'd comment: on average profs teach fewer courses than undergraduates take, so if, say the average prof teaches 2 classes a term and the average student takes 4, then you'd need 46 faculty to have a 15:1 ratio. Of course lots of universities have course loads higher than 2 for many faculty members, but taking into account sabbaticals, research-only profs in the sciences, maternity leaves, etc., I think the estimate of 2 courses/faculty/term for a non-Tier I research school is pretty good. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But this isn't actually a university, it's a small college and that is a different world entirely. Some comparisons from places I know: At small non-elite colleges, and even good 2-yr colleges, faculty teach 4 courses a term; at reasonably good 4 year colleges, such as Brooklyn College, they teach 3 a term. At the best colleges, like Oberlin, and average good universities, like Rutgers, they teach 2 a term. At Princeton they teach 2, sometimes 3, a year. So at Blue's college, the numbers work out at 4 a term for them. Where the faculty there will benefit, as is often the case in very small schools, is having small classes and personal knowledge of the students. Research-only faculty in science are another matter entirely: only a few stars are actually paid by the college from general funds--they mostly are paid on research grants. The way sabbaticals are paid for everywhere is by hiring part-time faculty, whose average pay is one-third the regular faculty for the equivalent work. Blue, as an administrator, will get a little more than equivalent faculty, and be expected to teach one or two courses a term as part of the job. But there's another dimension: full professors at the top of the scale make $150,000 at Princeton--more if they have bargaining power, $100,000 at Brooklyn College, and probably $60,000 at their place. People with grants get an extra 20% for the summer for no actual additional work; people without, get paid proportionately for 1 or 2 courses a summer. DGG 04:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The only thing that I question though is that when there's a sabbatical and a replacement is hired for part-time (e.g., my first job), I think most colleges would list both people on their "faculty," thus lowering the student:faculty ratio. Same for other leaves, teaching relief for chairing a dept. , being a new hire, etc. My hunch would be that on these things would actually lower the number of courses taught substantially below the actual number being required. I've seen a number of pretty unscrupulous ways of lowering Student:Fac ratio even before getting into borderline cases like independent studies (in theory, sounds good; but what about counting "doctoral research advising" as a course, thereby adding a couple hundred one to three person courses on the books). Chuckle!
That place isn't going to have any doctoral students :) I wouldn't be sure they'd give sabbaticals, either. :)DGG 05:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
My real disillusionment with the marketing of higher education came with my first job, at a small liberal arts college. The college bragged in all its marketing materials that, unlike at a large university where you'd be taught by graduate students, at "Shady Oaks" college, you'll be taught by nothing but profs! I quickly realized that almost a third of the "professors" were like me, graduate students at other schools in the Northeast who were hired for a year to teach some classes. If we taught at our own schools we'd be evil graduate student teachers, but at SOC we were wonderful caring professors.  :)
P.S. -- from your own expertise, how long do you think before the humanities journals from the following countries start appearing in electronic forms: France, Italy, Poland? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

Thanks, although I cannot take all the credit :) Discussions about reliability of individual sources are so common I thought a dedicated discussion place would be a nifty idea indeed - and we are getting one new case per day, so it seems to be working.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)