User talk:DGG/Archive 54 Jul. 2011

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


Barnstars, Awards, etc.


Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                                   In Popular Culture      Educational Program

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apr , May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec 
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2012: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2013: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2014: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2015: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2016: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec




You warned User:Sinharib99 a while ago about creating unsourced BLPs and they have do not seem to have heeded your warning. I've already PROD'd at least a dozen so far and I'm sure there's more to go. Noformation Talk 10:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, his sort of editing is unacceptable. As an informal notes seems not to have worked, I have left a formal level 3 warning, and will follow up. I am very reluctant to actually block someone adding information from our least covered geographical regions, but there is a point where it becomes an undue burden to deal with this sort of problem.
Meanwhile, Charles87, a competent football-interested editor, has been adding sources to some of these, and I will deprod those where there is at least a minimal source, and substitute when indicated a {{refimproveBLP}} tag. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification[edit]

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Natami[edit]

For sure! I've restored the deleted material for one user; I can put it up for you too, if you'd like. m.o.p 19:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Help editing Michael Deibert article[edit]

For some time now, I have been trying to clean up a low-importance article on the American journalist and author Michael Deibert but a user registered as Context23 keeps vandalizing it. Chiefly, Context23 continues to link to what I believe is highly contentious and possibly libelous material in the form of an article attacking Deibert by a Haitian politician named Patrick Elie (one of Deibert’s specialities appears to be Haiti) in a website I have never heard of before. I researched Elie and found that he evidently has a history of making false claims (on his website, Deibert links to articles chronicling how Elie spent time in prison for falsely claiming to be a diplomat and using a false address on a federal firearms transaction in connection to some sort of apparent assassination plot), so I am very worried that this link goes several steps beyond Wiki’s no-libel policy. There is already one article linked to critical of Deibert’s writing (which appear the point of the creation of the Context23 account) and that article falls within Wiki’s standards. However, I find the second article - the one that Context23 continuously links to - and another one linked to by someone named Diana Barahona that accuses Deibert of libel - do not. Thoughts? Thank you for taking time to help with this! Just trying to make Wiki a better community for all concerned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MultiWorlds (talkcontribs) 11:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice on the article talk p. you have already asked Collect for assistance--why not let him handle it? Another alternative is the Biography of living persons noticeboard. I note we do not usually include in our articles on journalists a list of the articles they have written, unless some that may be particularly noteworthy, although we generally do list books. DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

I think you made a very good point, and had I read your post (which cam after I went off-wiki) I would have asked for a short block of this editor. If it's possible to reopen the ANI for that purpose, perhaps that's the way to go rather than an RfC, and would have much the same effect. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

  • DGG, I missed the suggestion of a block that you had made and no one had yet replied to. That was pointed out to me and I re-opened the discussion. Obviously, I take no position on the subject, but for me or any other closing admin, it might be helpful if that were fleshed out and discussed.--Doug.(talk contribs) 14:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lone Ranger (film project)[edit]

At the discussion above no one was proposing that the article be "kept", and were disussing rather the better way to handle its removal from mainspace. There was some unaddressed and apparent misunderstandings of Deletion policy's instructions toward the intent of WP:INCUBATION, which relevent section states "articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where they can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted". As the article was clearly not yet ready for mainspace, and as (per WP:INCUBATION guideline) a rationale has been put forward by at least one person that the article could meet inclusion/content criteria if given time, and a willingness has been established by at least one person to work on the article, would you please either move the article to Wikipedia:Article incubator/The Lone Ranger (film) for collaborative editing, or barring that, please userfy it to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Lone Ranger (film) where I will invite those aforementioned interested editors to contribute to its growth and improvement until such time as it would be suitable for mainspace. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Spartaz should do it. I see you asked him also. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I asked Spartaz as the admin who deleted the article, but he has not responded. As I an not seeking a DRV of his close, and since I feel the project will benefit from collaborative improvements off of mainspace, I thought to ask a non-involved admin. Perhaps he will respond before too much longer. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
As he has been actively editing since I made the request,[1] how patient for a response would you suggest I be? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps he needs a nudge. I'll give that a try. The problem is that if his inaction is tantamount to refusal, I'd be over-ruling him. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Understood. Better for me to believe a lack of response is simply because he is too busy elsewhere. I will be patient. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


I read your views and must respectally disagree, based on the lack of any facts to back up your opinions therein. I can't see how User:Cirt has promoted anything (other than his personal views). He is not connected in any way with any of the topics that could constitute a promoter or spammer. Promotion, in my view, has to do with pushing a commercial interest (spamming), or promoting one's religion, school/college, political party (POV pushing), or similar group. Every editor is free to express an opinion by means of creating or editing articles of interest to him or her. I am more concerned that an organziation is pushing its views here at the project. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sure you already know, wise mentor, the relevant definitions and examples are at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_a_conflict_of_interest.3F. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
For once, we disagree. Promotion has to do with promoting anything. If I write a promotional article for, say, some college in Nebraska, I am not editing in accordance with guidelines, especially considering I'm an administrator. In this particular case, however, I think he in this particular case he was editing a substantial amount of the time in support of his views about a particular religion. That I might share his view to a certain extent is irrelevant. And I am really quite concerned by the situation, because I consider him in most respects an excellent editor and administrator. I take it as a caution against the possibility that I might some day edit in accord with my own political or other views, or edit too sympathetically in response to outside requests at OTRS or elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


What you have replaced in has no source material of any of the verifiable sources. It is a whitewash. Parents should be able to see all material that is relevant and in the public domain when making their choices. For the record there are multiple users of these machines who would like to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGregor1969 (talkcontribs) 21:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

as I said, much of this material, except the accusations about named individuals, will be restored, after I have rewritten it to be proportionate. It will take a few days. Where we expect parents to get information about local affairs is from local newspapers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about matters of lasting importance for the general public , which is not quite the same thing: it includes only encyclopedic material. some of the information you have been adding under various names is suitable a& adequately sourced & will be included & the sources linked so people can read further. This is all that can be reasonably asked for. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Seems better, quite balanced now, but need to correct a few typo's in Guardian results link. Can you clear that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:10, 3 June 2011

St Edmund Campion Catholic School Wiki Page[edit]

I am sorry to raise this but some individuals have removed and concealed the content of this site. It was of great value to parents like me. We new none of the stuff referred to was going on. Can you please revert the page asap to include all content or remove the edit block. Thank you. I do not believe the current censorship is reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGregor1969 (talkcontribs) 15:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

replied on your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Note I have created a version that removes some of the more egregious POV and trivia at St Edmund Campion Catholic School/Temp. Feel free to speedy if you don't think this helpful. Bongomatic 16:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, It's a good starting point, so I moved it to the article. There are probably one or two sentences of criticism to add also, but I'll get there is a few days. This sort of thing is best done with some consideration. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was unable to copy the page history, so that needs somehow to be restored (or at least some of it ;). Bongomatic 22:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
yes, this is among the things that need being taken care of. But what you did was the most important, producing an acceptable version. . DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I noticed that a second article had been created at St Edmund Campion School so have turned that into a redirect to this article (school website confirms that it's at the correct name). PamD (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

St Edmund Campion Catholic School, Erdington[edit]

I am not familiar with the history of the St Edmund Campion Catholic School article which you worked on, but I encountered an apparent fork at St Edmund Campion Catholic School, Erdington. The fork has balance and BLP issues. Should it be deleted? • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The history, in addition to other problems, includes an attempt to introduce details about a person accused of crime but not convicted. This is the second attempt to fork the article to evade protection. I have dealt with it and will follow up more closely. Thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

school page[edit]

You have again censored the St Edmund Campion Catholic School, Erdington page. Aside from what is contended to be BLP by the individual claiming to have no knowledge of its history (just happens to open an account and makes no other contributions other than to this page) you have also removed all the factual encyclopaedic content such as examination results etc.

This is not a neutral edit, it is censorship / whitewashing. You have also handed out an inappropriate warning. I believe you have not taken an impartial view of the contentions. Please, reinstate the factual content to the article and protect from further alteration, or refer to an administrator who is not partial for re-writing. There is no justification for removing the factual content such as examination data etc. In relation to the individual judged innocent of a crime, from his perspective it is as important to record he was found not guilty (as the article did) as it was to report throughout the media that he was accused. You have done him a disservice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGregor1969 (talkcontribs) 22:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

McGregor1969 22:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)McGregor196922:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by McGregor1969 (talkcontribs)

With respect to the BLP issue, it is not usually the province of Wikipedia to record the one or the other, though it is certainly true that if the first event was significant enough to include,then the second must be added also. For that matter if an article contained the statement X was found not guilty of something, this too is a violation of BLP policy for it implies he was accused of it. We include such matters only if 1/they involve notable people and the offense is relevant to the notability--as for politicians in office, whose notability is clear and where general character is relevant; or 2/ if the event itself becomes highly notable, as shown by truly significant coverage from multiple more than local unquestionably reliable sources, especially if some public issue is significant, or even if there is massive press clamour--as in the recent Casey Anthony trial, . Neither is relevant here, the person is not notable , and the event not the subject of significant coverage from major sources.The guiding principle here isThat Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The BLP concerns are real, and I am acting on the basis of a valid OTRS request.

As for the official reports on the schools performance, I agree they are relevant material, and I intend to add the reference. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi. I blocked it as a promotional username that was advertising Foreign Exchange F.C.--v/r - TP 03:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of placing an explanation on your talk p., an explanation needing some care to word precisely. But to reply briefly, I consider this rather a good faith new user who was trying to write an article about his club--an unacceptable article to be sure, and a subject about which probably an acceptable article cannot be written, but I was also in the process of trying to explain this to him, in the hope of getting a productive editor. I do not think this so abusive a case where we should prevent the user from making other contributions--and since you autoblocked, he couldn't do that either. If you like, please take this to ANI--I am quite upset by this sort of block, especially as the only warning was about the remove of speedy templates. (I shall be starting a more general discussion on the use of autoblocks in such cases--I think it is counterproductive, but I would rather not do so in terms of this particular instance.). I have emailed you also, but for reasons given there, cannot discuss this further tonight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)
I'm not going to take this to ANI because I think we can resolve this between each other. The username is Fefc which is an acronym for Foreign Exchange F.C. Wikipedia's content license requires that all edits are attributed to a single person, so accounts that represent groups are automatically blocked. Accounts that represent a group and create articles about that group are considered single purposed accounts and are hard blocked. I believe what I've done is exactly in line with the username policy. If you feel it's a possibly valuable contributor, why not only unblock for 24 hours pending they change their username at WP:CHU/S? I understand you wont be able to address this tonight and I don't intend to wheel war here. Keep in mind that I was instructed to use the block links in the WP:UAA template and the "Spam" link automatically checks the autoblock option.--v/r - TP 03:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
We don't disagree on what is needed to be done; we disagree of how to get there. there is no question he cannot use that editor name. There are two schools of the thought about how to deal with it: one is to tell him to choose another, the other is to block it. Certainly I would do the 2nd if the first doesn't work. but I've told people to change hundreds of times, and every one of them has done so if they continue. My usual message is
"You must choose another username. As explained in WP:USER, only individuals may edit. When you have a username that is or includes the name of your organization, you imply that you are editing officially, and have a superior right to edit the page. But that is not the way WP works--all editors are considered equal--and your contributions like those of any editor must be justified by sources. I'm sure you did not intend to give such impression, but that's why we have the rule.Therefore, please choose another name. On that user page, you should say whom you are working for." DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Well if we agree on the reasons, than how can you be upset over this issue? You've said that I'm aggressive, but I actually think I'm quite passive. I've deferred to the practice of other administrators and in this case I was using the template how it was intended to be used. I understand if you feel that autoblock, or even a block, was unneccessary but isnt that a cause for discussion? I do not want to make this seem as if I am upset, I'm not. I've been doing my best to assume good faith in usernames, but if they represent an organization and edit on behalf of that organization, I've been clicking the "Spam" link. I'm concerned that we have a "Spam" link in UAA that essentially says "Click here for folks who are advertising their own companies and I'll pick all the right settings for you" and I'm being told that's not true. Perhaps it is the template that needs to be changed? What all of this comes down to is that I dont see how you can be upset with me for following a policy and the associated template that executes that policy.--v/r - TP 16:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

TThere is no question that someone with an organizational user name editing on behalf of that organization must change their name, and we have a good template that explains why, but the contribution of such an editor are not necessarily spam, and even if they are initially ,they can generally be taught better, Unless they do use it for spamming they require just a change of name and there's no real need to block the old one, but I have no objection to doing such a username block it to avoid confusion over the use of the two new and the old names. But preventing them from doing what they are supposed to, which is to pick another user name and edit is wrong on many counts, and that is the effect of a hard block.It's wrong because its the harshest possible remedy used as the first step. It's wrong because you are assuming they will be spamming, and this is not necessarily the case; it is wrong because even if they were, they can generally persuaded to do better. It's wrong because it makes it very difficult for them to do proper editing if they decide to do that.I t's wrong because if they are determined on spamming, they will open new accounts until they manage to do so. In difficult situations, with repeated insertions, it may be necessary, but not as the first reaction. Almost all beginning editors can be assumed not to know the rules yet, and can be assumed to prefer to edit according the rules , once they know them. If not, then we can deal with them, but your method of procedure assumes bad faith from the very beginning. It is true the wording of the rule permits this, but only a few long term admins actually do it in this inflexible way, and they are just plain wrong. The rule is superseded by the basic principle of respect for newbies. We must have a continual incoming of new editors, and every attempt should be done to retain all who show any possible signs of useful collaboration, It is high time we changed the formal rules, which no longer reflect that actual practices of the community--only a few of the more hidebound older editors do it the way you have decided--you have picked the wrong examples to follow. What we do are the rules, regardless of what we say.

You might then ask , why do I criticize you for it instead of them. First, because it is possible to change the work patterns of new admins , and almost impossible to to change those of long-timers. Second, because I got thoroughly annoyed at you when you interrupted a rescue of the person and the article ZI was in process of doing, thus negating my work. That's not your fault--it's just an edit conflict, But such a rescue requires a group of messages that need to be custom written, and I had made the first when you make my point moot. If this made me more angry that I should have been, I apologize for it DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
DGG - That all makes sense and an admin who has been coaching me in UAA has about the same opinion. Let's try to move this towards closure. In your unblock statement, you said "excessively severe block for removing a deletion notice." Could you please adjust this to correctly reflect why I blocked even if you feel it's excessive? As far as the Natami issue, my problem doesn't have to do with the article. I assumed in your email that you were neutral, it was the impression I got. As I appear to be on a learning curve, you're not the first or last to question my actions in the first two weeks, I have no doubt there will be more emails in the future. Could you let me know your position on a subject so I can put your advice in context? It's not that I would disagree on those grounds, I just felt misled when you commented in the AfD.--v/r - TP 14:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You mean my position on the Natami article? I have no real position on it, except that it is certainly over-detailed in its present form. [2]. In my experience, for borderline subjects, modest articles are more suitable than extensive ones, and attract less opposition. Our keep/delete views of article is imo not realistic; rather, the article length should be proportional to the importance and the necessary complexity in talking about it--that's what all other encyclopedias have always done. I am not comfortable in making judgements for truly borderline cases in fields I am not familiar with; in my specialties I will try to give an opinion even if it takes considerable investigation. But most of the time now when I comment it is because there is some special issue involved, either with respect to the article or the argument--in this case,the argument about specialized sources, and,by the time of the DRV, the apparently partisan positions. There is one other thing; I am interested in so many issues & articles that I find it necessary to move on quickly to the next one, whether I succeed or fail in establishing my position. This has the additional benefit of preventing the POV attitude that inevitably develops from intensive involvement in anything,. and, even more, in keeping my own sense of mental balance. At work, I had to follow issues to their conclusion even if things became unpleasantly personal; here, I can walk away from anything. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
That's all fine, my only point was that you let me know your position on a subject if you were to email me in the future. Also, about the unblock, can you adjust the rationale?--v/r - TP 19:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Hello David, I am new to the world of contributing to Wikipedia but I do have an educational/professional interest in article sourcing and, in particular plagiarism. If you would be interested in serving as a mentor please let me know! Thanks, Dazzpedian (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! As you can see, I'm a little to busy to give general assistance, but I'n always glad to help with specific problems. So what in particular do you want to ask? DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind welcome! I am new to the Wikipedia way of doing things and found your take on issues to be instructive. I appreciate that you are busy at the moment but, if it's all right, I might come back to you with specific questions. Thanks again. Dazzpedian (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply requested[edit]

I left a response and a query here. BTW, thanks for joining the conversation. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You get a lot of messages![edit]

Just read your last message (page archived), haven't logged on for a few weeks, concede that I may have been harsh in last message (but not over the top), your reaction was nice and calm. Otherwise, if you followed every newby like you did me, you'd never have time in your day for anything else, so I still think it was a bit stalky, even if not intended that way! Also retract my retraction in the earlier message, you are probably an alright admin, but haven't got time to check.Borgmcklorg (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion, you might try replying or sending messages to other people on their own talk pages, certainly looks like you use your own strategy (doing everything on your own one) to, well, you know what you are trying to do. Sure makes the page look busy!Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly response. Yes, I follow many people. Probably too many, but my main present activity here is to help newbies who are having problems. The reason I do it on this p. is so I don't have to check too many other pages--like most active admins, my watchlist is too long to be useful.Instead I use this p. to keep track, plus a private checklist. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, see the point.Borgmcklorg (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

CIT, Rajnandgoan for CSD[edit]

Hi, I recently nominated CIT, Rajnandgoan for CSD R3 and you decided it was an appropriate redirect. I think you might not have noticed that the college it redirects to is located in Rajnand-gaon and not Rajnand-goan and I don't think that typo will be made often. A redirect from CIT, Rajnandgaon would be appropriate. So, if we agree that this typo is implausible, it may be reconsidered for deletion. Thanks.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the correct redirect you suggested. But if I can make a mistake, others could make the same mistake. Redirects are cheap, meaning that it is more effort to delete a perhaps unnecessary but not misleading redirect than to leave it be, Where work is actually needed, is improving the main article, which is exceedingly sketchy. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Good point, I'll try to remember that. Thanks.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Feudal lords/landowners[edit]

Hi. I created a Category: English landowners and it was put up for deletion at here. Please comment at this CFD for whether or not you support these categories. It is not meant for anybody who ever owned a plot of land but the traditional wealthy landowners in British history at a time when "Landowner" was an official occupation and was their main source of power and esteem. Feudal lords are most certainly notable in my view. I am personally intrested in country estates and their holders and was shocked that we had no category to link major property owners. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

yes, pretty obviously so. I think the category will clearly be supported. 03:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Now somebody is trying to delete Category:Country houses in England at here. Clearly they are not aware of the facts that Houses in... is supposed to include every house in whatever its type and country house is distinct from a townhouse, almhouse which many counties have.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded, and also elsewhere on that day's page of RfDs/ Someone is trying to delete a considerable number of templates. Myself, I think the first step in working on templates is a serious campaign to move the articles listed under general templates into the more specific included ones. Fixing the overall system would probably require a centralized effort--it amounts to a subject authority file, and the only ways I know good subject authority files to be generated, is centralized control, with the specific work under individual people and the format under dictatorial control by a single director. The relatively few people who work on his here have set themselves up as a central committee, which would only work if they had the authority to prevent anyone from disagreeing with them, which is not possible here except by relying on authority through obscurity, (I believe a phrase of my own invention, modeled after security through obscurity). Fortunately, there is a technical solution: the ability to make ad hoc category intersections, so if someone wanted a list of notable deceased Fooian Xish Y-professionals associated with Mycollege, they would be guided how to say so. DGG ( talk ) 14:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Common Law Marriage[edit]

Does Wikipedia have any policy for citing common-law spouses? I was reading an article about Richard Mentor Johnson, the Vice-President under Martin Van Buren, and the article said that he had a common-law wife. However, the infobox said Johnson was unmarried with a note about a common-law wife. I disagree that a person with a common-law spouse is unmarried. How do you think this should be handled? Debbie W. 04:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwainwr123 (talkcontribs)

Interesting question. I'd suggest asking at the BLP noticeboard. My preliminary reaction is that if the article is clear, whatever is in the infobox does not much matter.The exact legal status of "common-law" spouses in the US varied from state to state and time to time; I do not know what the law would be applicable in this particular instance. But the first thing to check is to see what such RSs as standard biographic dictionaries and print encyclopedias sday in the matter--being careful not to overvalue older sources, which tend to be evasive on matters like this. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will post it on the BLP noticeboard. Debbie W. 13:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwainwr123 (talkcontribs)

My CSD history[edit]

Hello there. You said in this edit that you could and would check my CSD history. I was accused (not by you) of knowingly and repeatedly misusing A7. It was very easy for that user to make those claims without providing any evidence. I asked that user to either provide evidence or to provide a retraction; s/he did neither! It's very easy to cast aspersions, and to call people's good names into question. I have been waiting for you to review my CSD history, and for you to confirm that those claims are totally false and without reason. I look forward to hearing, or should I say seeing, your review. Fly by Night (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

will do tonight or tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I appreciate it. Advice and review regarding any other CSD categories would be very welcome too. All the best. Fly by Night (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Further reading[edit]

I recently posted to Wikipedia talk:Further reading to agree with something you said. I'm not sure if you have that page watchlisted, so I'm dropping off a note to point out what I said here. I've also asked a few others to comment, as I'd like to see this discussed more. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Right on. I've commented further there (btw, I appreciate notes like this, because my watchlist is too long to be useful). DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi I've opened a discussion about categorizing actors and actresses separately at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Splitting actors by gender. I need some input. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rescuing Samir Joubran[edit]

Hello again, DGG …

Since you declined my WP:CSD nomination of Samir Joubran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I lack the motivation at this moment to put lipstick on a pig, I have flagged it with the WP:FLAG-BIO protocol … also, someone should initiate a dialog with the article's creator if there are going to be any constructive improvements to it. :-)

Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 03:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Bi PolarAnon-IP (as it says on your user page--I'm revealing no secrets here) --in my opinion, Leaving a notice for someone that their article may either be copyvio or non-notable or violate the COI guideline is a remarkably nonspecific and unhelpful step. Leaving new users negative messages about their articles, and signing them "Happy Editing! is , in my opinion, insulting. And, again in my opinion, your advice is likely to be taken more seriously by those users if you actually do use an ordinary user name, instead of insisting on editing as an ip. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
<Sigh!> The very last thing that the {{Flag-editor}} template says is,

… I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case.

The point is that it's much friendlier than the WP:CSD warning, which has been their only contact, and which does not invite a dialog. — (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Change it from "I realize that" to "I apologize if". :-) — (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes indeed, if your point is that the preexisting standard notices are so unfriendly as to be counterproductive, I would certainly agree with you, and will be very glad to cooperate with you (or anyone) in any good faith effort to improve or replace them. I have learned that people read only the fist few lines, espeically if it seems hostile, and it is better to be brief than to cover all situations. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: DRV[edit]

Thanks for the kudos. I've been trying to make a habit of closing hard AFDs, and it's a bad idea to be too attached to the outcome - or afraid of peer review - when so doing. DRV is good to have since it can help correct these kinds of mistakes, so as long as it doesn't get heated and people don't take it personally, I think it's a great fail-safe to have in place. Regards, causa sui (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi, this user has created several good new articles and has been around a while. I stumbled upon this editor patrolling the backlog og unpatrolled new changes. Have a look at her contribution history, she might merit Autopatroller rights. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

done DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IB INTERVIEW User:Poysndi[edit]

Hello my name is Andres and in my ITGS (Infromation and technology in a global society)course, of the IB I need to interview someone who is related tot he issue of my choice. Since my issue is Wikipedia I was wondering if I could possibly interview you. I would greatly appreciate if so. Please provide me a way to contact you such as an e-mail address so I can send the interview. Thank You Poysndi (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your response. This interview is for my portfolio extension (internal assessment). I did a portfolio (ITGS) on Wikipedia, with the are of impact being education the issue being the fact that some schools block Wikipedia. Based on this portfolio I am planning on writing an extension on to what extent Wikipedia should be used in education, what its role is or something along those lines. The interview is 9 questions long and I believe pretty much anyone who's involved in the Wikipedia project could answer however a more experienced user might prove more a credible source for the IBO.

Poysndi (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I await your email. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance but how do I e-mail you? Poysndi (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I explained this on your user talk p., [User talk:Poysndi]] -- see also WP:E-mail DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion - Gary R. Englert[edit]

DGG, I would greatly appreciate your advising me how I might access the aforementioned deleted page or, in the alternative, your sending a complete copy (including images and references) to me via e-mail to

I would like to review same in order to intelligently discuss it with you and toward possible submission for reconsideration of the deletion.


<Mooney1084v (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)>

Following a [[WP:REFUND#Gary R. Englert|request

Page Deletion Redux - Gary R. Englert[edit]


I would respectfully request that you view the following videos towards reconsidering your decision to delete this page:

Rather than an exercise in self-aggrandizement, this page serves as a mechanism for interested parties to contact me and to assist veterans in dire need.

Gary R. Englert

<Mooney1084v (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)>

I have reviewed the article and the key references, and watched the two videos. The videos are irrelevant: neither of them is about you. As for promotionalism: first,the article was written to be promotional about you and your work--neither is permitted. Half of the article is about your military and public service accomplishments other than veteran's affairs, none of which rise to the point of notability for an encyclopedia; the half about your role in veterans's advocacy uses such phrases as " The dramatic news coverage that he nurtured and encouraged to publicize this compelling story ", which are pure public relations language, not information. The point you raise here and in the AfD, is, in your own language, that you are using Wikipedia to "serve as a mechanism for interested parties to contact me and to assist veterans in dire need." There could not be a clearer statement than your own about why the material is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Our purpose is not to promote anything, anything at all. We do not serve the purpose of providing a directory of social services. The value of what is being promoted is not relevant.
On the other hand the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation in West Orange is a suitable topic for an article, though that article needs some improvements, which I shall give it. The New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans Affairs also has an article, and seems throughly out of date; I shall see if it can be updated & expanded; it might be appropriate include your name & position there. DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No opinion on notability or whether or not an NPOV article on this subject can be written but where did this guy come from? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Good question, but it does not affect the result. DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect and any representations to the contrary, I would respectfully submit that Wikipedia contains countless articles devoted to organizations, enterprises and individuals that serve little more purpose than to promote a profit making enterprise. This page is most certainly far from that. The point of asking you to review the videos provided was not to suggest that I was the subject but, that they are about the work that I do and the compelling causes that I champion; described as such because they clearly are just that... unless one views homeless and traumatic brain injured veterans as something less. Point in fact, these issues would have virtually no public awareness at all if activists like myself weren't beating the drum. The donation of cash, goods and services is the tangible result; more than $40,000 for the soldiers being treated at Kessler alone.

As to that portion of resume provided, it is only that which is necessary to gain the type of credibility that is necessary to gain the trust and acceptance required to interface with and assist combat veterans. It is a given that an Internet search for virtually anyone these days results in their Wikipedia entry (if they have one) being the first or second item that appears on any search engine. Deleting my page will simply serve to diminish my effectiveness in doing what considerable good I do.

Finally, I must point to the following opinion voiced in the deletion discussion:

"Keep - Seems to have enough material on him to make him notable." Hawkeye7

It would appear that this editor (Hawkeye7) has Wikipedia credentials and academic experience equal to your own, with the notable difference being that his professional discipline is military history. Given the limited discussion that occurred, how does one editor's opinion outweigh another's of equal stature?

Lastly, concerning Ron Ritzman's inquiry about wowikiprince, I would opine that this one-time contributer is another psuedonym employed by poster woconcernsme who repeatedly vandalized this page in the past. When one's civic activism results in arrests, indictments, convictions and sanctions against criminal, one does have the tendency to make lifelong enemies.

Gary R. Englert

<Mooney1084v (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)>

You are quite correct that we have many equally promotional pages. They too should be removed. The ones that qualify for speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD G11, articles whose entire purpose is promotional. are removed as soon as we see them. Your argument above convinces me that your entire purpose in writing the article was to promote yourself and the work you do, for you say so yourself; it thus qualifies for CSD G11.
I suggest you read WP:Autobiography: As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest, but it's relatively much more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what you wish to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know about you. Put another way, if you qualify for a Wikipedia articles, someone else will write one about you.
There are several options. By far the best chance of getting a satisfactory biographical article will be for someone else to write it. You mention Hawkeye, and he is certainly a respected editor. I shall invite him to write one. If I think it satisfactory, as is likely, that will end the matter unless someone else nominates it for a deletion discussion. If I think otherwise, I shall ask for a community discussion at another AfD, which will be evaluated by a different administrator. As the purpose of any article he might write will not be promotion, the discussion can focus on the notability of your work.
Your other option is to take the page to WP:Deletion Review, It is always possible that I am mistaken. I have deleted over 13,000 articles; 4 or 5 times, my deletions have been reversed by the community. If you want to do that, I shall certainly respond by calling attention to your statements here about your admitted promotional purpose; the community will decide, If you do take this option, I would suggest the only likely possibility of keeping a page will be first writing a draft that removes most of the background, and focuses 95% on your role at the Department. You have the right to ask even without rewriting the article, but the more modest the article, the more likely it will be restored there. Much better to let Hawkeye or someone else do it. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

David (if I may call you David?)<

Accepting for the moment that this page is "promotional," will you concede it is towards reasons worth embracing and not for personal or financial gain? If you do, I'd like to suggest a temporary compromise.

With the approach of the 10th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, many veterans suffering from PTSD will find thesmelves restimulated and in need of services. Accessibility to activists such as myself, who can provide advice and counsel, are a valuable resource and surely a benefit to all.

In orde that I be more accessible to the public in these coming weeks, I would ask you to temporarily re-post the page, wiht the provision that I will work with Hawkeye7 or whichever other editor you might suggest, to create an article meeting all acceptable criteria.

Would you eb inclined to take such a leap of faith? Surely, the good I may be able to do will more than offset any minor temporary tarnish on Wikipedia's protocols.



<Mooney1084v (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)>

Of course it's not for financial gain, but most of the problems we have with promotional articles are for being pursuing a good cause. Look, I'm doing the best for you I possibly can--I'm encouraging a very competent editor to write an article about you! If he does it, he will produce a more effective article than you could do, or than at this point I could do. Years of experience and hundreds of articles have taught me that almost nobody can possibly write as suitable an autobiographical article as someone else can. I encounter this all the time in my specialty, of articles about academic faculty: However notable they are, they almost invariably say either too much or too little. Generally the article must either be completely rewritten, and it's usually best to start over from scratch. The more perceptive they are, the easier they realize it. I have told many of my professional colleagues on and off wiki to keep their hands away from the articles about themselves or their projects. With the best and fairest intentions in the world, nobody can really judge what is appropriate about themselves for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


I understand your point, however, there is not a single statement in this article that is untrue and only one that, though true, lacks an appropriate citation. It damn sure ain't bragging if you've done it and it is the very nature of veteran advocacy that one talks about their experiences! Again, I'm more than happy to have this re-written by a Wikipedia editor and then submitted for your review and approval. I'm only asking that you repost the article...let's say for a maximum of thirty days or until the new one is written...whichever comes first.

I've been doing this work for a lot of years and I know what demons will be awakened in the next six weeks. Toward that end, I want to be as accesible as I can to those who may need help. Whaetever else, Wikipedia has and will serve that purpose.

What do you say?


<Mooney1084v (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)>

I'm sorry to have to say this, but your posting above is proof of a promotional intent. You want the article in Wikipedia so it can attract donors. There have been similar pleas to let articles stay in for the duration of a political campaign. People use our encyclopedia to find objective information, and nobody would or should trust an information source that has articles for that purpose. I'm going to ask that you leave this in other hands, and stop posting here, or I shall have to ask another administrator to consider blocking your account. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


My apologies; I thought we were having a courteous conversation. which is what I was encourage to do by adminstrator JohnCD. It is not my intent to annoy you. You are incorrect, however, insofar as I have never solicited donation through Wikipedia and am not doing so now. The fundraising I referred to (for soldiers being treated at Kessler) began and ended before this page was even published. I was simply providing an example of the good that can be done with some exposure and Wikipedia does provide that. I also understand your postion: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and you are trying to maintain that focus.


<Mooney1084v (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)>

as far as I am concerned we are having a courteous communication. I have asked a qualified editor to write an acceptable biographical article, and I am warning you against the sort of editing which is likely to get you blocked from contributing. Unlike many administrators, I rarely block at all, and almost never block for conflict of interest unless there is no other way to stop it. And in this case even if it becomes necessary I shall ask someone else to review the situation first. What more could I possibly do? The best way for this to remain friendly is to close the topic. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Fair enough. I just thought reposting the page pending a re-write was a reasonable compromise. if this was not accomplished as promised, you'd still have the ability to pull the plug. Whatever else, this is not about self-interest. I'll hope to be contacted by administrator Hawkeye7.

Gary < (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)>


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Again. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Another friendly nudge. :) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

curious how you feel about this closure[edit]

I was wondering how you felt about the close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gargoyle_Router_Firmware. I spoke to the closing administrator [[3]] and pointed out that all of those saying keep cited the sources were fine, while the delete people said otherwise. Thus there was no consensus. Dream Focus 09:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

well, he liked my argument. :). DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

AFD for Yeshaya Labin[edit]

Thanks for the "honors" on doing the merge. I hope I did it right. There was basically nothing to copy except Labin's title, which itself comes from a dubious source. Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Kathy Chitty[edit]

Good afternoon! Some time ago you voted to keep the article on Kathy Chitty. It has been nominated for deletion again. If youy have the time could you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Chitty (3rd nomination) and add any comment you might have. Thanks. Regards Rickedmo (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Check on a "University"?[edit]

Is there any independent way, such as an accreditation system, to check on an outfit calling itself a University in the US?

I ask because of this little walled garden which appeared today:

I have already taken the Fraternity to AfD, after declining a speedy, because I can find no refs independent of the University. The Fraternity has "endorsed" a book written by the University's President, Zviad Lazarashvili; the University has a scholarship in its name; and it has already awarded the University the "2012 Laissez-faire Medal of Freedom." It all seems rather incestuous.

The one that concerns me is the "International University" in Philadelphia, which claims to have been founded in 1812 (though its website was only set up on 19 May this year) and to have 1,200 students. The article references are extremely thin, many to books by Zviad Lazarashvili published by the University Press, whose only publications on Google Books or Amazon are by him; his other books have been published by CreateSpace and BookSurge, print-on-demand companies. He does not appear in Google Scholar.

Such references as I can find are mainly the University website or about the Press publishing Lazarashvili's books. Beyond all the obvious problems of puffery, I am wondering whether there is anything real there at all, or whether at best this is something that is just starting up.

The "Academy" in Tbilisi seems a bit more real. JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

We have often kept articles on unaccredited universities, btw, but they have to be accurate. My own feeling is that if they are at all notable we should, because we at least can be an objective source of information on them. But the utter minimum , of course, is real existence.
I looked first for what is easy to verify, some names of alleged major writers for whom the schools in the university are named. "Janet Mathewson" is a very minor 20th c. non-notable novelist., "Winford B. Johnson" is a non-notable chemical engineer with 1 paper, 1 thesis & 1 patent. This sort of thing is enough to cast major doubt on everything.
As you found, I confirm that the "president", Zviad Kliment Lazarashvili, (while having nothing in worldcat or google scholar) is real , with a few actual books , e.g. [4] & [5], published either by vanity publishers or by the university. The best match for the head of the press Dr. Ihejirika, is probably WC Ihejirika, who has written a few papers on contemporary African religions.
Since the Wikipedia article on the University is a copy of its web site history page, [6] I have therefore simply deleted the article on the Philadelphia University as a copyvio. If anyone tries to reinsert it or argue permission, we can deal with it then.
I have edited the page on the Academy to remove all references to GIU, as material failing verification. The Google translation of its actual webpage is [7]. There is no reason not to think it real. For all I know, they may be attempting to establish a branch in the US, but they need to prove it. And until it does get established, it is not notable.
Good work. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I just came to this page because I was going to ask you about this also - because on the Tbilisi Academy [8] I am unable to find any independent sources to confirm it exists either. Have you been able to find anything that suggests that isn't also a hoax? I'm having my doubts about it considering the fact the article was written by the same editor and I can't seem to locate anything to verify it actually exists. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Not a lot of independent confirmation, certainly, but one wouldn't expect so much. I did find a mention here, and the website (what one can Google-translate) somehow seems more real. It doesn't give me the same this-looks-like-a-scam feeling the US one did. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Basically I agree with JohnCD's impression. I am reasonably confident that if I cannot find sources on a US university, that it does not exist; I know the language, I know the educational system; I know the likely sources; almost all of them would be easily accessible to me. For a university in Georgia, where all the sources are in a language I cannot read in an alphabet I cannot even pronounce, and very few of the potential sources even in Georgian are accessible to me, and I furthermore do not know the educational system well enough to know what is or is not likely, I am much less willing to draw conclusions, I am going to some extent by the existence of at least purported photographs on the web page, by the rough collaboration that the Georgian historical events mentioned are real and correctly dated, and that, from what I do know of the higher educational system in the USSR and its successors, the academy's history seems probable enough. The article at least makes some sense. The Philadelphia one does not. As a way to go forwards, the various names need cross checking, and the difficulty of possible multiple transliterations, including possible transliterations through an intermediary language, does not help. That the same person might write an article based on the true Georgian university, and its hoped-for but not yet real expansion to the US, is plausible enough. I am also thinking that in the last few years some rather unlikely and poorly sourced articles on over-ambitious european educational institutions of various sorts have turned out to be real, though it has sometimes taken quite a while to establish this. Most total hoaxes entered here sound different: much more smooth and impressive, just about something else or something wholly imaginary. The other way forward is to go top-down--find information about higher educational institutions in Georgia, and see if the information mentions others but not this. My preferred option is to see what response we can get from the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, DGG. I should have spotted the copyvio, that would have saved time, but I'm glad to have your view in case of future arguments. I have already explained WP:V and WP:N to the author; we'll see how he reacts. One more point that adds to my suspicions: Lazarashvili's books on Amazon have a total of 14 customer reviews, and every single one gives him five stars! That must be some kind of record. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If he does assert permission for the material, some actual documentation will show up on OTRS and I will be able to see it there. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, DGG. Yes, if we could get some confirmation that would be a good thing. I tried to find lists of Georgian Universities and couldn't find it on any of them. But likely, if it is a real school, there is a language issue as you suggest. Do we have any reliable established editors familiar with Georgia that we could ask for an opinion? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martin Ruzicka[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Martin Ruzicka. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Journal of Cosmology[edit]

Could you take a look, please? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

looking--it may take a while, as I want to examine the actual journal carefully. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


I agree with your close on the Atheism 3.0 AfD, but in my opinion it might have been better to wait the full 7 X 24 hours, considering it was ca contested discussion. Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 6 then 12 hours early, etc. This is one place where it matters. This definitely does not mean I disagree in the slightest with the close, and I certainly do not plan to take exception to it, but just a reminder. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Of course I am in full agreement - I closed the original discussion to extend AfD from 5 to 7 days. It is something I have advocated myself. When I closed that AfD the time date said 7 days, and I didn't look further. It might be helpful to have a similar date notice as is carried on the Prod template:
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days. Please check the history to see when this template was added. / This message has remained in place for seven days and so the article may be deleted without further notice.
Changing the wording to:
The discussion may only be closed if this message has remained in place for seven days, unless the discussion meets the criteria in either WP:Speedy keep or WP:Speedy delete. Please check the history to see when this template was added. / This message has remained in place for seven days and so the discussion may be considered for closing or relisting.
Do you think it's worth starting a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion? SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Unless I am mistaken, there actually was such a template there for a while. In any case it would presumably be easy enough to do it. The only technical problem I see is that presently relisted debates do not have to be open a full 7 days extra, but perhaps the solution is to change that also. Let's bring this to WRT:AFD, The basic reason is to keep things orderly and prevent people from making errors. I have a clock overlay on my computer screen to display GMT when I work on Wikipedia, and it helps, but it still takes some thinking when the day changes. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'll start a discussion - linking to this. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thai Life[edit]

thanks for this. Seems logical to me too. Yes, what has drawn me back somewhat is the recent AfDs on museum, cultural, etc. stuff. Hope all is going well for you. StarM 17:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

currency qy[edit]

I appreciated your warning on BLP concerning Robert Zoellick's bio. I see you're also an Ambassador. Can you use another mentee? I hope you can help me because a reliable stakeholder analysis predicted in 2004 a 90% risk that failure to resolve the issues now under consideration in Wikipedia will result in a currency war. I will be happy to share this stakeholder analysis with you and other background documentation. The former Chair of the World Bank's Audit Committee invited me yesterday to connect on LinkedIn.Currency1 (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If the information is published, link to it on the talk p. If published, but in a confidential communication which you do not have authority to cite, it cannot be used until someone actually publishes it openly--whether or not they have the authority to do so is irrelevant, if published in a reliable source. If a blog posting, and it has been publicly and reliably sourced to an authority, it can be used as their opinion; link to it and explain. If a private communication or your own unpublished research, it cannot be used. I will look at the relevant talk p. DGG ( talk ) 15:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Qwyrxian (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A mediator from Mediation Cabal said my edits improved the Robert Zoellick article and requested additional sources, which I provided on the Robert Zoellick talk page several days ago. The editor who reverted my edits has not made any further comments. Under these circumstances, what do you suggest now?Currency1 (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knight Holdings.
Message added 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


I think we need a small clarification at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#BLP_errors_in_mentions_of_James_Cantor_.28me.29.. (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

yes, I realise I could have been misinterpreted , and I've clarified. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

recent RFC[edit]

Hi DGG, thank you again for your input at Talk:Hockey stick controversy where you said, "Criticism is almost always the better word [better than "attack"] for a Wikipedia article on anything controversial. The reader will decide on the nature of the criticism and the merits of the arguments." You might be surprised that despite your input and that of two others who said the same thing, it is being claimed that because you qualified this with "almost always", it means that while you agreed on the specific point ("criticism" not "attack"), you probably didn't agree on the general principle or interpretation of NPOV. Somehow they claim that you would still think that if a reliable source uses emotive, loaded language, it is generally better to the use exactly the same terms in the article to avoid misrepresenting the source or subtly altering the meaning or reducing the clarity. Is that actually your view or was I correct to take your statement as agreement on NPOV as well. Best, Alex Harvey (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with it now. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I wish that was true. In his response he seems to want to say that this is exactly what he always said and once again asserts that I have mispresented him. Naturally I don't agree. He goes on to say that a mutually acceptable compromise was found but in fact it wasn't; I just gave up. Would you mind having a look at my response to see if you agree with my commentary? He also asked a question about Lysenko which I tried to answer and perhaps you'd like to give your view as well. I do feel, for what it's worth, that so much of the conflict in the climate change pages could be resolved if this point about NPOV is ever settled. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
nothing will ever settle this controversy, because too much of the motivations on each side are other than purely scientific. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
So what do you suggest. Edit warring? Alex Harvey (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. But a serious question. What should I do. Raise another RfC for the next issue? We all know what happened to the good editors like Cla68 & AQuestForKnowledge when they requested Arbitration. So that's not an option. Should I just accept that I'm not welcome to edit in the topic area of my primary interest due to labeling I've received as a "fringe theorist"? I am not, by the way, on any "side", and I have to say I resent the assumption, if it was an assumption, that because I'm under constant attack by the majority in there I must be on the "other side". Certainly they keep repeating this loudly and as often as they can, but that doesn't make it true. My view is exactly the same as yours as stated above, "too much of the motivations on each side are other than purely scientific". I couldn't agree more. I just don't like the way it seems to be directed at the present NPOV dispute, which would include me. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
My own experience is that I avoid editing in some areas where I have considerable professional or personal involvement because of my desire to avoid disputes here, and my knowledge that I could not manage to edit there without either getting into fights, or resenting the fact that I had to refrain from getting into fights. I do have a very strong position on the basic issue behind these articles, but I will not edit them, and will only make a comment if I can make a neutral one. In one different area, where I tried deliberately writing for the enemy, so they could be more sensibly refuted--an area where the enemy were too unskilled or ignorant to make a decent job of writing for themselves, I found myself being accused by those whose views I shared of being a traitor, and being deliberately deceitful in saying I was writing for the enemy. It's many years since I've even been willing to take a look at those articles. In some other areas where I have been initially unknowledgeable and have tried to intervene in a neutral way, I find myself under attack from both sides. That, I've learned to accept, but I realize that if I continue editing there I will surely develop a bias for one position or another.Hence I skip around. There is no way to win a fight on Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly[edit]

Thank you very much for your participation my RfA. Apologies for the lack of Wikilove formatting like I'm using for my other thankspam, but I want to say something a little more complex here, so it will format better this way. As I admitted, you were absolutely right that I screwed up the A7 question. And, as you pointed out...seriously, how was that even possible, given that it's such a common RfA topic, I knew I was under review, and thus who knows what I'll do in the field? And you're totally right. I have no idea how I let the most obvious part of the question slip past me, and got focused on other things that didn't even matter. And I feel especially bad, because yours was support I had really been hoping to have. Why? Well, your work here really impresses me. My interactions with you on AfDs and other places were the first to start to substantively change my opinions about deletionism/inclusionism. At one point, I actually called myself a deletionist; now, I like to think that I'm neither (as, I believe, are you), seeking instead to make individual decisions about individual articles. I also feel like I'm less quick to jump to an AfD on older articles, and more likely to take more steps, give the original/regular editors more time to make improvements, etc. Seeing your work on AfDs and on improving articles helped me realize that we really all should have the same goal: making the articles we have as good as possible, and deleting them only after we've tried to fix the problems and really decided that they are, ultimately, unfixable.

With that being said, if at any time you happen to see me making bad decisions, or even questionable ones, please feel free to step in and tell me to shape up. Furthermore, if you have any particular suggestions about how I might make sure to "get it right", please tell me and I will happily study, review, etc. Of course, I'll be reviewing all of the policies and procedures again before taking any actions, and for the foreseeable future I'll be doing any deletions with the mop in one hand and the guidelines in the other, but I certainly welcome any help that you have. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You have my support in every way that matters. Having my support in a real way is not the same thing as my voting support at the RfA. Sometimes I feel the need to call attention to an issue at the cost of not appearing to support a person. In such cases I generally write various drafts of my comments (as I did here), taking different positions, before making a decision which one to post. Every time that happens I remain unsure if I took the right course to have taken, I think you are understand well enough not to hold it against me; I would feel very sorry otherwise, and conclude I made the wrong choice. (I would have felt even sorrier if it had prevented your selection, and if I thought it would have done so, I would have posted differently).
As for future assistance, you will find I am much more willing to criticize those I trust to understand, than those who would take it poorly. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that as well. Your oppose was actually well written, and to me represented a very clear "ethical" stance (that understanding CSD is something all admins should be able to do). Its even a stance that makes sense to me; had the CSD issue gained momentum, I would have willingly accepted a consensus against promotion and then spent the next 6 months getting it right. Now, I'll just have to make sure I get it right as I do it. I'm going to start in slowly, dealing only with obvious cases (like, I doubt I'll have much trouble identifying a G10, or even an A7 that says "My girlfriend is the best!") need to rush anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive[edit]

Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 03:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BTW, do you know why some pages, like yours and also Wikipedia talk:Non-free content amongst others, take so long to load and then give me an "unresponsive script" error message, but load after I tell the script to stop? ww2censor (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

happens to me too, mainly with Safari. I suspect the Wikipedia Javascript loads very slowly. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yeshu[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yeshu. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


So you think that a person who has only one film credit, to a film that has not even been released yet, is a claim of notability? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That would tend to mean that we can't delete anything via WP:BAND, since having sung a song is a claim of notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
what article? It would depend on the film and the role whether the claim is credible. If it is a self-produced film, it might not be a credible assertion. I do more work with books than films, and having written a book, other than a self-published book, is considered a credible assertion. Music is not my strong point, but if the Band has not recorded anything yet, then their claim is not credible either, and we delete a good number of such garage bands a day, for even people like me can tell. And I remind you that it does NOT have to be a claim of notability. It just has to be a claim to some possible good faith credible significance or importance, which is much less than notability. Deliberately so, in order that we not delete potentially improvable articles. What you want to use is PROD, as both I and another administrator suggested on your talk page . It works very nicely--they either get improved, or they get deleted. If a prod tag is removed without improvements made, then use WP:AFD. It works very well too in getting rid of what is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is Matt Dunnerstick, which is the article TParis and I were talking about in the section of my Talk page that you commented on. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I've commented at the AfD , not notable , but not a CSD A7, DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Aether mod[edit]

I am not truly sure for the reasoning for your deletion of this page (Aether mod). I am not related to the Aether mod or the person who created said aether mod page. The person who made that page placed it has placed it within the wrong area, its place should be along with the Minecraft (By "Notch" and Mojang AB) page. You've stated yourself as a librarian which I find to be knowledgeable, helpful and well learned. I do not know all things and subjects within, I do not try to make myself look like I do either. Should one really throw out book just because it was in the wrong place? I believe the information on that page could have been helpful. It is a popular link on google and therefore must recieve some amount of traffic. It's significance was the relation it had with minecraft, a game that has expanding quite a bit since it's initial release. (Aether mod page) (minecraft) (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, Minecraft is very highly notable and even I know that. But not everything connected with Minecraft is significant, and being connected to Minecraft is not a claim of significance. Being a mod of a famous game is not a claim of significance. Being mentioned in a Minecraft forum is not a claim to significance, & there was nothing better in the article and I can find nothing better on the web. Can you show me one mention outside a Minecraft forum, and not connected to the authors of the mod? (the techunwrapped description reads as PR-- and even says at the bottom it is a Press Release, and therefore not independent). DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yorkshire Imperial Band[edit]

I've recreated this article, which was deleted in 2006 as "(was put on speedy for nn band; looks like nonsense to me.)", perhaps by someone unfamiliar with UK brass bands. They have recorded, won championships, have a long and illustrious history, etc. Could you userfy for me the previous article, in case there's anything useful in it? Thanks. PamD (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored it as the oldest item in the edit history--seemed simpler. [9]. I see no reason why it shouldn't stay there to give credit for the earlier work. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't think the earlier version includes anything I want to copy in to the current version. Could you remove it, please, so that the edit history of the current version reflects its history from when I created it yesterday? Did I really not save any versions of it for the first hour of work on it? Perhaps I was over-anxious not to create a feeble stub which someone would speedy again? Thanks. PamD (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Iagree with you, and shall right now do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks but... the way it looks now makes it look as if I over-wrote a 5-year-old article entirely, with edit summary "info re recordings"! (OK, so anyone looking at the history might wonder how it hadn't been speedily deleted after nomination for speedy). Could you please revert it to the situation before you did anything - ie the old version, having been speedily deleted, had disappeared completely, and I started a new article from scratch? I only asked to have a look at the old version in case there was anything useful (refs, cats, etc) which I ought to include in the new one. (And I'm not sure that the old article's version of the Rothwell side of the history is right: I gather there was a major bustup between drinkers and teetotallers so that the Rothwell band split into "Temperance Band" and "Old Band", one of which then merged with the Imps, but not sure which!) Thanks for your help. PamD (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I hope I got it right this time. DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - my first few incremental edits are still lost, but at least it shows that I created it. And I think I've even got the Rothwell history sorted out now - so added it to Rothwell Temperance Band too for good measure. Pam

Belatedly contested PROD[edit]

I see that you undeleted Vach Lewis, but for some reason did not restore the edit which PRODDED it. I have restored that edit, as it should be on record that the article has been the subject of a contested PROD, since that makes it ineligible for another PROD. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

actually, that was pretty stupid of me, because all I meant to do was remove the prod. For some reason I didn't think of the re-prod issue. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

your thoughts please :-)[edit]

Hi DGG, could you please have a look at this issue and share your thoughts on it? Thanks --DeVerm (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC).

afd is designed for this sort of thing--though I am likely to have no real opinion on the subject, others will. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Rachel Beckwith[edit]

Hello DGG,

I agree with you 100% that this article should be deleted under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No compromise on the bottom line. Here, we are dealing with a user who is almost, but not quite, a single purpose account. Six months ago, this user reverted vandalism to George Clooney. Almost certainly, this user is someone close to this little girl who was killed in a car accident a week ago. So, I take exception to your use of the word "pathetic" in the AfD debate. Can't we explain why the article should be deleted while still selecting our words carefully so as not to further hurt someone trying, in all good faith, to add an article that we both agree doesn't belong here? In my view, there is always room for compassion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  • It can be difficult to explain why something really and genuinely important to an individual may yet not be encyclopedic. I used pathetic not to denigrate, but in the sense of pathos = emotional, emotionally rather than intellectual significant. Because it's used in the negative sense also, it probably was not a good choice of words, and I'll try to find a bette expression. I thank you for making me aware of it, because this is something important to me also. Some of our standard terms are unnecessary unsympathetic; there are some words and phrases we should avoid, not just in dealing with articles on people, but on other things, which can be equally emotionally important: for example, instead of "not notable" — I try to say "not notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia". instead of "not significant, or "unimportant" I usually say "not of significance to the general public who would use an encyclopedia." or "though important, not relevant to the purposes of an encyclopedia.", or "not what most people would expect to find in an encyclopedia.". Even those with good faith emotional involvement will usually recognize with care that an encyclopedia is not necessarily the place for the material they care about, once they are reminded that Wikipedia is , after all, an encyclopedia. The term "encyclopedia" does still have a connotation of "general interest from an abstract and impersonal point of view", and most people will accept this in the end. But it's all too easy in dealing with material not appropriate here to fall into bureaucratic coldness, and I am not exempt from this; other people can always judge the import of one's words better than one can judge ones own. The general rule holds, that if what you say is misunderstood, the problem is with how you said it. All writers require the help of an editor, and here, with no formal editing authority, we must help one another. Being one's own editor is like being one's own lawyer, and the proverb holds, that he who would be his own lawyer has a fool for a client. I hope everyone will do as you, and correct me when i make a mistake--to the extent I may be less of a fool that some others here, it's because I'm aware I make errors. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your thoughtful and perceptive response, and your adjustment to the AfD comment. By the way, it is clear to me that you are far from a fool. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Cara Hartmann[edit]

Most of the !votes were entered after the article was redirected - and all of the !votes eplicitly deal with the video and its notability (as that is the basis of the article). In that light it seems a bit of a beuro-creep to close that as "keep" (when it is clearly delete) on procedural grounds that it has to be under the new article name :S I encourage you to re-open it, or close it properly. --Errant (chat!) 20:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

reverted & Relisted. I think I did it right the first time, but it isn't important one way or the other. If any cleanup is needed, pls do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)