User talk:DGG/Archive 57 Oct. 2011

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

                                       ARCHIVES

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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
2017: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
  

   DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Contents

PROD template fail[edit]

I assumed you wanted to prod it, so I did this edit for you, to fix the template. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

yes; thank you--I seem to have typed only one pair of brackets. I've accustomed myself too much to Twinkle & I forgot the manual syntax. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-written SOS_Online_Backup, Please review it.[edit]

Hi, I Have Re-written SOS_Online_Backup, Please review it when you find time. also please get me some feedbacks for my future rewriting works. Pearll'sSunTALK 08:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, My request for a feedback has been [1] with infos that the article is a promotional type. I'm trying to work on it to reduce that. Please assist me when you are free.Pearll'sSunTALK 10:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


Curly Fury[edit]

Trophy.png Curly Fury Deletion
Hello, my name is Nathan Jones, and I am currently in the band called Curly Fury. Please sir, this is a really important page and it would be greatly appreciated if you could not delete the page again. This band really does have a meaning and is not a waste of space. The page was created out of fan request sir, and it would really be appreciated if we could keep it a little longer. Feel free to email me at nathancooperjones@gmail.com . Thank you sir and please enjoy the rest of your evening.

-Nathan Jones FouxSchizel (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for promotion of bands--or indeed for promotion of anything else. Its for articles about subjects that people would expect to find in an encyclopedia , and an article explaining the details of formation of a band that has not yet made a recording is not one of them. If you ever should have references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, and meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC, then ask at Deletion Review that the article be restored. Music is not my primary subject, but I trust my judgment here all the more because another administrator also deleted the article: it makes three times now. May I suggest you concentrate on making recordings good enough to meet WP:MUSIC, and, at Wikipedia, add information to Wikipedia articles about subjects that are already notable. I wish you success at both. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


uw templates[edit]

FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you and I with our combined experience could go a long way to help develop this. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


Ping about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing[edit]

Hi! If you still have suggestions for any of the 9 listed as "in-progress" at WP:UWTEST, please drop a note on the talk page for that template. We're going to start the new test now and would rather not change the templates in the middle, but it's easy to do a new test or simply incorporate changes afterward, since all we need is a week or so of data. I'm interested to see what you'd like to do, because my feeling is "the shorter the better" on these warnings. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide[edit]

Please note that I have done a procedural close to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 9#Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide, and created a new discussion about the related category tree at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Category:Suicides by occupation. Feel free to express your opinion there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Case for SPI?[edit]

User:FouxSchizel and User:Darkknightzac have been using identical templates with similar appeals to admins not to delete articles. Do you think we should investigate? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

unless something else appears, perhaps not worth the trouble. DGG ( talk ) 11:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


NPP[edit]

Sorry I forgot the NPP link. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


Re:Your comments[edit]

The fact that Stone Sink Maintenance had been recently created, I thought putting a "Wikify" may help instead of tagged for AFD or Speedy. In the case of SGHS Rowing Club, the article wasn't a stub or other terribly written articles (i.e. "It's a club in Washington, it was founded in 1998") so again I thought I'd give it time. I've received complaints that I tag articles too quickly so I thought I'd take things slow, you can never please everyone. I do understand that in the fact of Mette Bach, the article could've used more work such as the sources were little but once again I thought I'd take it slow and give the user time. I suppose I'll take some time off as it seems I need to. You never responded this message of mine where I explained that even though she's a scientist, she still needs some biographical sources for notability and verifiability. In response to your suggestion of looking at my contributions, I do take a look at my contributions up to 3 days, but I can't spend all day going back too far. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not catching it earlier; as I've said many times: In the case of academics, the evidence that their work meets the standards of WP:PROF is an complete alternate to WP:GNG. The usual criterion is their being an authority in their subject, and this is shown by the citations to their work, as judged by what amounts to such distinction in their particular subject. The rule was adopted precisely because WP:GNG can be given the interpretation that two or more citations to their work that discussed it substantially showed their notability, and so I successfully argued a number of times before WP:PROF was fully accepted. Since about half of all published scientists meet this criterion, and it was agreed both by those interested in the subject and editors here more generally that this is much too broad for encyclopedic notability, an alternative was adopted, and the GNG criterion is not argued in this manner, but for the other ways in which any person can be notable--such as their work having substantial published discussion but no influence on actual science. The ultimate rationale is that notability means notability for something other than the routine facts of existence, and that this can be proven in whatever manner is appropriate for the subject. As an analogy, proof that someone competed in the Olympics is accepted as unquestionable notability, though nothing may be known about the person except the name and the country represented. (I think what I'm saying here has consistent consensus, for I know of no recent AfD to the contrary.). DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Infobox[edit]

You left a comment at the infobox debate but it wasn't clear if you were !voting to keep or to have it deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

and I thought I was being unambiguous. My support for the infobox is totally unqualified, and very definite, to the extent I regard opposition to using an infobox in an individual case like this as unconstructive at the least, and more accurately termed disruptive. It's basic policy that we don't over-ride a general principle of article construction that has 99% general consensus without very special reason, which has not been demonstrated. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I commented on Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte but am asking here as well, as I don't know if you will recheck that page. Infoboxes are absent from many biographical articles on classical music composers and librettists. I can't swear there are none, but I checked dozens of articles and couldn't find any with Infoboxes. I also checked a number of biographies of performers and impresarios, and again found Infoboxes largely absent. This suggests, at the very least, that the use of Infoboxes is not as pervasive as you make it out to be.
I am not saying that a credible argument for them could not be made. But I am not aware of a "general principle of article construction" that requires Infoboxes "without a special reason", much less that has 99% consensus. Please direct me to it, if you can. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Projects have no authority in Wikipedia, except to the extent that the general consensus agrees with their decisions. Wikipedia is one encyclopedia , and should be consistent. One of the reasons for consistency is to avoid arguments like this, which could if permitted be carried through to any level of detail. The better course, would be to design an infobox more specialized to the needs of a subject; that's standard practice. If you want to challenge the use of infoboxes, start a general discussion on the topic. On that question of the overall merits, which I do not consider the current issue, my own personal feeling is that I dislike their crude appearance, as I dislike the crude appearance and colors of much of the interface--but I think the need for structured data is important to future development, and this seems the simplest way to get there. I think it's hopeless getting well-written articles with open editing, so we might as well get formalized ones to which everyone can contribute. But right now, what is really essential in the short term is the concentration on attracting and keeping editors, which requires all the work of everyone; the best decisions of style are therefore the simplest and the most universal, so the least effort is spent discussing them. Experience has shown we can have infinitely long discussions on even the most minute points of style. In many of them , I have my own preferences about even minute details which do sometimes do not agree with the general MOS. But it's more important to get it settled one way or another than to get it my way, or even to get it right.So I follow the general rule, and concentrate on the work that is important. Projects should not vary based on local preferences, but only when it's essential to the subject. Sure, 99% is an intrinsically rhetorical figure, but the principle holds. The proof of general consensus is that all the other subject areas for bios use them. Consonant to my own principles, having I hope made my views clear, I see no need to convince anyone & now close this discussion here. If we do have a general discussion, I'll repeat it there. I have learned that here more than anywhere else I have ever worked, I can but give my argument and let things take their own course. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I know you said you weren't going to reply, but as you didn't answer the question, I thought I'd ask it again: where is the documentation of the alleged consensus/policy in favor of Infoboxes? I haven't found any firm rule about them in Wikipedia, one way or the other.
If no such consensus exists, you are of course free to make the argument in favor of Infoboxes on any pages where you believe they are warranted. But if it is not policy, then it is disingenuous to say that those who disagree with you are being disruptive; they are just trying to make the article better (or to prevent it from becoming worse). Marc Shepherd (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The general consensus is demonstrated by the general use for articles on people. Guidelines are the rules for what we do; some are written, some are customary practice. (when written guideline and practice contradict each other, it represents a problem that must be resolved, but more often, like here, they complement each other). The written guidelines discuss how to make infoboxes. The uniform practice, which amounts to general consensus, is to use them for all types of people. You're saying that classical music ought to be an exception. There are 4 possible arguments for your position. One is that infoboxes should not be used at all, which was in fact the argument given by most of the people opposing the boxes at that page, but would need to be made more generally--and is there is very strong consensus otherwise. Second, that each project should be able to decide on whether or not to use infoboxes, a position which might have something more to be said for it, except for the general rule that the projects are not independent, and that any special rules they wish to apply must have the agreement of the overall community, Giving them autonomy in article style would be an argument that would also have to be made elsewhere, and I think the consensus would be very strong that we want to have a single encyclopedia with a single style, not a collection of separately organized subject encyclopedias. Third, that classical music at least ought to be different, as an exception to the general rule that we use infoboxes for people. I see your assertion of that, but no attempt to show that --the only reason I can imagine is that it is more dignified, which would seem utter snobbery. Making the exception would , like the first two, need acceptance by the entire community as well as consensus by those working on the project. I suppose you can try to make the argument, if you can find any reasons that people outside the project would accept. A 4th more radical position is that each particular page can decide all style questions on its own--and that the extremely local consensus there is against it. At the most, the consensus there is divided, but I think the general position for Wikipedia in general is extremely strong that the individual pages must follow the general style guidelines, even if everyone working on a particular page wishes to depart from it, they may no more do so than they might decide to ignore WP:N. All guidelines of course have exceptions, even for individual pages, but the presumption is against them. The burden of proof for anyone who wants to do something non-standard is to demonstrate why it is needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)




Murzyn[edit]

Any thoughts on this at the AFD?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

hardly needed, but I'll comment. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Fastily#HumanSigma_Deletion[edit]

Hi DGG, hope you're well. A user has contested the speedy deletion of HumanSigma. As the editor who originally nominated the page for deletion, your input would be appreciated. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 19:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

commented there; both of us missed that it was a copyvio; I should have realized that promotional articles of that sort so very often are before just placing the G11 tag.. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Nolelover's talk page.
Message added 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Die Reihe[edit]

An editor here insists on including the complete lists of contents of this publications. It is my understanding that this is against WP:NOT (specifically: NOTADIRECTORY), but as the other editor says, there is indeed no specific wording there about tables of contents. What do you think? --Crusio (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

normally this is non - encyclopedic content; I've seen this for some other humanities journals also. But there seems to be a special justification here: we could include in a journal article information about publications in it by especially famous authors, and many of these certainly are in that category--that Stockhausen and Boulez and Cage and Stravinsky published here is relevant content: perhaps it should be reorganized into a listing of notable authors & their contributions. (More often, I've seen this more usually in articles about books, where it sometimes has a better excuse as a convenient way of explaining the topics). Please copy over this suggestion. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the discussion is not very fruitful and User:Jerome Kohl insists on listing the full tables of contents (of both the English and German versions of the journal). Perhaps you can participate directly in the discussion on the talk page? --Crusio (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll get there, probably tomorrow~
  • Headbomb came by and things seem to have been arranged now. It's become quite a good journal article (thanks to Jerome Kohl once he was convinced to leave out the TOC). --Crusio (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


+1[edit]

+1 on the vulgar jokes discussion! SarahStierch (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been waiting some years now for the balance to shift on this to the point where we could take action. . DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


CKD Galbraith[edit]

Could you please restore the CKD Galbraith article. While I appreciate that you're trying to keep the article standards ups, I think it was not given sufficient time to develop. CKD Galbraith is a national firm in Scotland that seemingly has wide reach and should have an article in Wikipedia. The deletion article says:

Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.

Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates. Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets, and should consider notifying the page creator and any major contributors.

Thank you. Hackbinary (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion in one place, and refrain from forum shopping -FASTILY (TALK) 20:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobcatsss[edit]

Hello DGG. Would you mind to take a look at the article Bobcatsss and relevant AfD discussion? You seem to be a specialist in this area (library and information science). I think your opinion might be helpful. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


Ohio politicians[edit]

Hopefully you agree that the Deletions of Ohio politicians is undeniably harmful. Could you see that these pages are reinstated? Or, at the very least, recreated as stubs? As long as they are represented it's ok. Please look at the dozen or so members that are red linked on the Ohio House of Representatives as well as frank Larose and Scott oelslager in the Ohio senate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.199.28 (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think deletion on the sole basis of the contributor being banned or blocked not generally a constructive approach to the encyclopedia. But considering that in this instance the contributor was known for multiple copyvio—and multiple socking to introduce yet further copyvio—I do not feel justified in undeleting the material without checking it all, and it preferable should be written afresh by someone else. Yes, I urged the editor who placed the deletion tags if they wouldn't do better to simultaneous write new stubs [1], and I myself would not have either tagged or deleted them without doing that. I'm sure someone will rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that's another sockpuppet. That was very quick of him to realize those articles were missing. Marcus Qwertyus 23:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
of course it was--my second sentence was worded to indicate that I realized that. Rather than just say so, I decided to give them a good faith answer, in large part because the answer is of some general relevance. Our rules about removal of content just encourage this sort of behavior--we're playing their game, and whack-a-mole is a game they can never lose, except by growing out of it. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


Re: archives[edit]

I don't; just the header navigation thing I designed. Did I tag them by mistake or something? — Status {talkcontribs  00:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. Nothing like that has ever happened to me before when requesting deletion. :/ I've removed the headers. — Status {talkcontribs  00:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you delete this as well please? I'm such a damn perfectionist, so I decided to just keep my subpages clean and undesigned. I change it WAY too often. — Status {talkcontribs  00:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. If you get tempted to complicate your life again, and need to do this again, ask me or some admin on our talk p. to make sure it goes right. You are, btw, doing very nice cleanup in article space. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you :) Will do — Status {talkcontribs  01:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Was wondering if you could move my sandboxes (1 through 9) with the same URL, just with a 0 in front of it (ex: Status/Sandbox/01), and delete the redirects? — Status {talkcontribs  02:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Moves[edit]

Yes, that's exactly it. Thank you! — Status {talkcontribs 04:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Page move question[edit]

Joyful Season looks to have been redirected to The Joyful Season, but it doesn't seem to have been formally moved as the history is still at the Joyful Season page. In order to get them back together, what needs doing? Am able to undo the redirect and then do a move, but don't want to complicate matters, if possible. ;-) Thanks, We hope (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

that might be the simplest way. Any other suggestions from people around here? DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Am going to give that a try; if for some reason I'm not able to undo the redirect, will be back to ask for a hand with it. Thanks, We hope (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Have it all back where it began: Joyful Season with The Joyful Season as the redirect to it, (whew!) We hope (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the original page Joyful Season was just cut and pasted into The Joyful Season without moving it. Have set the The Joyful Season page to redirect to the original, and hope this is the end of the problem. We hope (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


Os_Piores_Portugueses|[edit]

Please see here I'm assuming that you aren't watching that page and I would appreciate your continued input. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 05:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

200 Greatest Israelis[edit]

Hi. I think this was wrongly deleted. in fact the AFD shows a lot of strong keeps and I think it should have been ruled as a no consensus. Can you restore it to my user space and I'll try to source it? I don't see why it would have been any less notable than the other lists at AFD,♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be better to ask Beetlebrox; I think he will userify it without difficulty. The inconsistency between AfD decisions is unfortunate, but the alternative of following strict precedent would have deleted all of them on this basis of that first one. My advice is to wait a few days until most of the others will probably have been kept, and then ask Beetlebrox to move it to mainspace after you have revised enough to meet the objections--working on the basis that the objections were valid. It will be simpler than deletion review, which is almost as unpredictable as AfD . DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Deletion review for Minh Nguyen (Wikipedian)[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Minh Nguyen (Wikipedian). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Re-written SOS_Online_Backup, Please review it.[edit]

Hi, My request for a feedback has been[2]with infos that the article is a promotional type. I'm trying to work on it to reduce that. Please assist me when you are free.Pearll's SunTALK 01:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Francis Bacon (artist)[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:Francis Bacon (artist). 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) 07:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

responded. Another nationality dispute ... DGG ( talk ) 13:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


Indian temple problems[edit]

I thought I'd drop a note here as you've dealt with some of the Indian temple articles I tagged for CSD (G12). I'm seeing a nasty pattern in these articles, and have requested help for investigation at Village pump. Pesky (talkstalk!) 12:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DRV Tidy Trax[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE NAME. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Vaio12343 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Tidy Trax Article was created for the use of members joining in and editing, people seem to be using personal Gaines they have gained as they requested a speedy deletion, the speedy deletion was requested as a result of the Wiki member being to lazy to want to participate in WIKI, If they Do not want to participate in Wiki then they should be deleted

I already commented there, an half hour before you sent this. If you want to oppose my opinion, do so at the Deletion Review page where others will see it. The person who requested the deletion is a very well established contributor, as well as at least one of the people commenting, and the admin who closed it. I see no indication that they were acting in other than perfect good faith or have the least conflict of interest. You, on the other hand, seem from your user page to have a very clear conflict of interest, and are using this to further an outside legal dispute. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Arts Tasmania[edit]

Hey, just a note to say that I have blocked this person. Their username was a violation and reviewing their use of article space and userspace it seemed apparant that they weren't looking to contribute anything positive to the project. However, I may be wrong and feel free to shoot me for it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 02:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is some dispute about it; myself, I see no reason to block unless the contributor insists on using his original user name, which was not the case; others however disagree, and block as a matter of course. I deal with the disagreement about the proper steps to take by not routinely unblocking if another admin has blocked, and hope similarly that nobody will block if I decide not to, unless of course the situation deteriorates. Normally, if I do not block when I delete the page and give a warning--which i customarily call either "explanation" or "advice", it is because I do not intend to block, not because i have simp-ly forgotten. Ideally, just as I do not interfere with another admins blocks, I similarly expect not to have someone blocked after I have considered the situation and decided not to block. But perhaps that's not clear, and in such cases, I probably would do better to leave an explicit note. But not a big deal either way--I generally do not complain or necessarily notice when another admin reverts me, explicitly or implicitly--there's too much else to do
However, what I quite frankly consider wrong about what you did--and some other admins do it also--including one or two of my best friends here, so please do not take it personally--is to hard block in these situations. A person naïvely introduces a COI promotional article, but that does not necessarily mean they are incapable of doing one properly. Most of our articles about organizations are in fact written originally by people with some degree of COI, where the article is either fixed, or the person has learned to do it properly. Many do not learn, but some do. The ones who are too arrogant or too foolish to learn, get blocked, and I have no hesitation in doing it--even hard-block, if they have used sockpuppets. After all, our standard advice to people using improper usernames is to abandon them and use a proper name, and how are they to do it if their ip is also blocked? we normally give people second chances--sometimes even third and fourth chances also. It is better to have to go back and be more sever after initially not being severe, than to be unreasonably severe to a new editor.
And there is something else: it is generally considered incorrect to also block the talk page, except for people who abuse it, and there were no signs this person did.
So I think it is appropriate to change those two settings. In order to avoid confusing the user, I shall do so now; I doubt you will disagree, but if you do, we can discuss it. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
yes, you got it right. Sorry for the confusion. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
DGG, did you mean to block account creation? I can't tell if that was a mistake, or intentional, so I won't change it myself. I didn't see the discussion above, so I left a redundant note on Panyd's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, upon re-reading your comments above, I'm fairly confident you were not trying to prevent them from creating a new account, so I'm going to change that setting. My apologies if I misunderstood. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Greetings. This was tagged for speedy deletion literally minutes after I created it .. I was in the process of updating and was faced with the speedy request after I saved the new data.

I would appreciate more understanding and guidance as I am new to this and I was slowly providing more info, Third party links and so on

I understand the vast information and contributions that you have to deal with on a daily bases. I hope this deletion is reviewed.

The subject of this matter is a world renowned Organ Transplant surgeon who has held various government ministerial offices for many years.A founder of the national Organ transplant program. a founder of many scientific boards..he has been a Public universality Dean for many years. he is a Lead organizer of many nonprofit social awareness and outreach programs including immunizations to parts of Africa. his work and scientific experiments are all over the internet.TV. and Newspapers. He has improved the quality of life of millions of people. his work and publications are a notable contribution to the scientific community in the field of medicine.

I believe this topic qualifies for publication in more ways than one and it follows Wikipedia's guidelines

Kind Regards

Edit: I have read your advice on my talk > I did not read it before or knew such page existed, as I mentioned I am new to this. to add to the above . I will take notice of your advice and try to re post accordingly. Please let me know what you think and I would appreciate any help you can provide. Kind regards

(Jimspana (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC))
Right, let me know when you've done the article and I will take a look at it. There's no rule that you get it right the first time. Remember to avoid adjectives of praise. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)



Workable Words: Deep Words For Simple Living By Sterlin Sookoo[edit]

Hello There DGG

I will not be writing this article again and I would like you to completely remove the title as well for this page

The title reads:

Workable Words: Deep Words For Simple Living By Sterlin Sookoo

Please remove everything completely just like the contents were removed. I appreciate this so much. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGoodReviewer (talkcontribs) 14:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the talk page also. You are free yourself to edit your user page to remove any and all comments there. But I urge to you continue to write for us--pick a book of best seller status for which you have in hand reviews from 3p such as magazines and newspapers, and write an article. Or write one on an author who has published several such books. Just describe the subject neutrally and give references for the reviews and prizes and awards. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


Talk page deletion: Talk:Remzey Samarrai[edit]

Hi! Guess you must have been distracted, as you missed deleting Talk:Remzey Samarrai when you deleted the main article. Anyway, it's done now. Stephen! Coming... 20:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for catching it. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

About those paragliders...[edit]

Regarding your comment in closing the AfD for the paragliding-fatalities "article", you said "I do agree with a comment below that that main article on the sport is written in non-neutral terms, almost promotional." I'm afraid that's because User:Joefaust, who created the deleted article (and a couple of other related articles, also at AfD) edited it to slant the whole thing to his POV, which is...well, let's be charitable and call it "different". (AfDs here and here help to illustrate the problem.)- The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

well, yes, that sort of writing is usually by a single person. The solution to this, just as for most problems at Wikipedia, is increased participation. The principle of Wikipedia is crowd-sourcing, and it doesn't work without lots of people. But I think it more tactful to wait until the present articles at AfD get deleted. I did say I would work on it, but all I can do on this subject is copy-edit. (Actually, when I first saw that article this morning, I even thought about G11--but the basic structure of the article is usable. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


Deletion of Identity Management[edit]

Hello,

An article I posted very recently was deleted very quickly under the tag that it was "promotional." The article pertained to stigma identity management in the workplace, and I was wondering if you could provide a better explanation of why this article was removed so quickly. I read through Wikipedia's guidelines for an article before posting, and I do not believe the article was correctly placed under the label "promotional." Any feedback you can provide is much appreciate. Thank you.

IdentityManagement (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Among other things, I noticed your user name. Are you in some way connected with a group offering some related service? As the term you used for the title, "Stigma Identity Management", is not standard, and you wrote it in just that way, with initial capitals, I made the assumption you were promoting such a service. What does seem to be relatively standard is the term stigma management. I think what I shall do is restore it under that title, and you should select a different user name having no relation to the subject of the article, and continue working on it. OK? DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. The only reason the username is so related is that this article has been a group effort such that multiple people could access the account working on this article at once. However, I will henceforth work on it from my personal account to avoid any confusion. Again, thank you for your consideration, and I can assure you that the article will be updated periodically over the next week or so. IdentityManagement (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Outside comment - You said, "such that multiple people could access the account working on this article at once." Wikipedia doesn't allow accounts with multiple users. Do other people have the password to that account besides yourself? If so, that one should be blocked and each of your colleagues needs to register their own separate account. See Wikipedia:NOSHARE. Voceditenore (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. You placed a notice on the article saying you knew Wikipedia notability guidelines--but notability guidelines are not the rules that matter here. That account ha now been blocked by another admin, and had it not been, I would now block it. Everyone who wishes to edit must select another account, individually. (The group editing does account for one of the key problems with the article, that each paragraph seemed disconnected.) But when you say that this was a group name, are you an academic class? For classes, we have a regular system of help provided, including not just consultation and on-line help for the editors, but assistance with class instruction on how to write here effectively. in part to avoid problems with deletion of class projects in their formative staged. I am one of the Education program ambassadors for the NYC region, and if you are in this region, I can arrange for assistance or perhaps do it myself; if you are located elsewhere, I can refer you to the appropriate person. For information see WP:Ambassadors DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)



Testing those alternate templates you made =[edit]

Hey, just a heads up we prepared the user warnings you made. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing#Suggestions at the end. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST members update[edit]

Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.

Here's what we're up to lately:

  • Huggle: There are tests still running in Huggle of level 1 templates, including a new template written by DGG. A full list is available here
  • SDPatrolBot: There is a new test running on the talk page messages of SDPatrolBot, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is here.)
  • Twinkle: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 1, 2) This test should start this week.
  • Shared and dynamic IPs: Maryana's proposal to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests: 1, 2
  • XLinkBot: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are being written and help is most welcome.

Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


A tool for you![edit]

Hi DGG! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName 
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. So long! --Sp33dyphil ©© 07:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


Wikipeda: The Musical - class?[edit]

Hey there - you've got an impressive user page. This Saturday at Wikipedia: The Musical - are you intending on just researching, or do you want to teach a class? Ssilver has also expressed interest in teaching a class. Let me know as I can facilitate use of the training room -- kosboot (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I hope to teach, and indeed I do like to present, but teaching can also be done by helping individuals. I gather there's a planning meeting tuesday, and I expect to attend it. Perhaps Ssilver should be invited to it also. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so you're the one coming with Pharos. I offered to show Ssilver the training room beforehand, but he said that he won't be available before 10/22. So I can show you and you can help show it to him. See you Tuesday. Btw, enter through the Amsterdam Avenue entrance (not the main Lincoln Center entrance). -- kosboot (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22[edit]

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz[edit]

I explained the capitalization before. Please note that both Worm and Du acknowledged that my capitalization followed a convention in computer programming. Geometry guy noted that Worm and I both miscapitalized and abbreviated his name.

I don't believe that I have doubly capitalized Du's name since I was alerted to his onomantic concerns.

Somebody complained about my writing of HMWT's name. "OE" is the spelling of the lost English vowell, which is still used in Nordic languages. I do not have a Swedish keyboard at present, and I shan't waste my time on hunting for a non-English vowel on English Wikipedia.

Have you considered becoming an administrator on Wikipedia?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that last line a sincere question, your universal response ( intended to indicate anyone can become an admin), or an intended put-down? I'm not one of the people who care what is said to me, but I do care what is said to other people. DGG ( talk ) 12:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a shortage of administrators.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
personally, I think we have more than enough in total, but what there is a shortage of is careful admins who deal with newcomers patiently. ~
Hi again!
There seems to be progress here, and at the RfC, where Worm did note that, at times, others drew first blood before I retaliated (retaliated or "escalated" in his words).
Regarding your RfC comments, we disagree about several things. You want me to treat children or young men as equals, but then you state that I should give them special dispensation. (I agree with the latter: It should not be hard to find examples of my being especially kind to youth, in one case by stopping him from helping me in a dispute.)
Regarding my comment to WTT, whose diff you provided: He is an adult, and has not objected to my dealing with him directly, or at least acknowledged that I do not treat him as a child in previous disagreements.
Don't you agree that he would have prepared his RfC with greater care, and deleted its opening, if he had followed my advice to consult with somebody more experience? I think that integrity and true collegiality required that I advise him before the RfC and then remind him of my advice (when he failed to follow it, at cost to both of us). It is obvious that he doesn't have experience in politics or interest in debates, or he would not have written such an RfC. Particularly in politics, experience is necessary for virtuous conduct: Teenagers capable of effective political action are almost always children of politicians or politically active organizational leaders.
Would you please consider the concern that you and others are effectively enforcing Jante law?
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Network for Better Futures[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the page I attempted to post on The Network for Better Futures. I will work on rewriting it to meet the guidelines you suggested soon. When I'm ready, how do I repost the page? Thanks for the help. JDBurget (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)JDBurget

I have started the page User:JDBurget/The Network for Better Futures for you. When done, ask me here to have a look at it. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Way to track IPs?[edit]

I was over on the Richard English, writer and entrepreneur deletion page and I noticed some of the "keep" arguments were by people who had signed up just to vote on the entry. It's possible that they are people independent of the author who were not asked to vote here, but I can't help but get the sneaking suspicion that it's the author and/or people he's sent here to submit "keep" arguments for the debate. Is there any way of verifying this? I didn't want to say this on the AFD entry without a way of finding actual proof. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

I've added the {{spa}} template after those editors' contributions, so the closing administrator will be in a position to discount the opinions proffered. Bongomatic 08:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTV's Oddities[edit]

Hiya, DGG. I stumbled upon this particular AfD, and I think it could merit an opinion from someone more in-tune with WP:TV than myself. I don't know if this sort of stuff is considered appropriate for the main Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television page or not, or if there's a sub-board or sub-sub-board or somesuch. Sorry to bug ya! Badger Drink (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

while an afd is open, the afd is a good place for discussion.As a general matter, it is best to put discussion on a fairly generally watched page, unless the matter is narrowly specific. But I am curious about what led you to think that I have any particular interest in TV? DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not terribly active in AfD, and when trying to think of AfD regulars who generally provide good rationales, your name came to mind. Terribly sorry for the offense I seem to have caused. Badger Drink (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
not the least offense, just pure curiosity, because one of the things in the world I am least interested in is television. I do find myself discussing such topics anyway, but when I do I try to say I'm giving a general opinion based on our general practice overall, not on practices of the workgroup, or the specifics of the article. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Integrity Media/Integrity Music[edit]

Hi, I'm interested in stripping this article of promotional content and restoring it. Chubbles (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

what 3rd party published evidence have you of "together, Integrity Music and INO Records are the top independent labels in the Christian music marketplace. " with respect to Integrity Music? Without it, you can't show notability & there wouldn't be much point in rewriting just to get it deleted at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't write that sentence, don't particularly like it and wouldn't reuse it. I don't think it's necessary to show notability anyway - that statement's just peacocking. Integrity Music has a roster of notable musicians (probably not as many as INO, but beside the point), and its business dealings are significant enough to attract attention in the Christian music press, e.g. HM Magazine's coverage here. Chubbles (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm restoring it to mainspace: , and I'm counting on you to work on it. It's relatively difficult here getting people to accept the notability of a publishing or distributing company or label based upon having notable artists, but another good reference like that one you mentioned would do it. As far as that sentence goes, it is not necessarily something to be eliminated--it would be a useful one if it included quantitative sourced data on market share, instead of just assertions. BTW, I presume it distributes the relevant parts of the SONY and timne-Life labels, not their entire catalogs? I did some preliminary editing to get things started. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Balabin[edit]

Hey DGG. I'm inclined to agree with you regarding your comment in the AfD discussion assuming the other article has reliable sources but I can't find the subject on another Wiki. Did you find it somewhere is your argument based on the assumption that it actually is on another Wiki? I assume it's on the Russian Wikipedia but as they use a different alphabet, I'm having trouble finding it. OlYeller21Talktome 21:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

its based on coverage in the Catholic encyclopedia. Whether another Wikipedia covers someone will be relevant information, especially on a national subject, but does not determine ours--for one thing, the different Wikipedias have different standards, and further, they make mistakes just as we do. But what I did not see is that it was not the Catholic Encyclopedias I am familiar with, but assuming the Russian one is genuine, it counts. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC) .
The article is a very close translation of the RU wikipedia article, ru:Балабин, Евгений Петрович. I linked to it, and will comment in the AFD. --GRuban (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

CSD discussion[edit]

DGG, it appears that no one has informed you of the discussion at WT:CSD#A public company listed on NASDAQ is speedily deleted from Wikipedia?. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

commented there. The question of whether to regard as NASDAK listing as an assertion of importance appears to be undetermined, unless the talk there reaches consensus. I assumed it did not so count, any more than a self-published book, but I may possibly be wrong. The relevant article has been restored, at least for now. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New Enterprise Associates[edit]

Roger David - I came across a deleted page for New Enterprise Associates which you seem to have speedily deleted because of issues with content. I am not sure what the content of the article was but this is among the largest and most notable venture capital firms in the US. It was founded 30 years ago and has $6 billion of assets under management. Additionally, there are several dozen articles on wikipedia that mention NEA. I would appreciate your help restoring whatever content was available (so long as it is not unsalvageable) to start a stub that can progress. Thanks |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓTALK ◄| 04:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I may have been going too quickly--the language was full of promotional adjectives, but they can be removed. I shall restore it, & make a few changes, but see suggestions on the article talk page for further improvements. To start with, your statement of asset size does not match what was in the deleted article. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Wow, you stepped in it...[edit]

Hi DGG, thanks for stepping into the situation at Talk:Abdullah_Ibn_Saba. If you have a chance for a more thorough review, I'd greatly appreciate it. The biggest issues seem to surround claims of WP:OWN, POV, BIAS, improper use of sources (content not supported by sources) and so on. This has caused the content removal that Wiqi55 is complaining about and mischaracterizing as "misleading edit summaries" full well knowing that multiple aspects of his proposed content is in dispute, and may be against multiple Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. I am trying to objectively review each... but an outsider's opinion would be greatly appreciated, especially as I have followed other incidents where Wiqi55 was found to be POV pushing and trying to justify such with hiding behind various guidelines and policies. Doing my best not to let that affect my opinions on the matter regardless. Anyway, you've stepped into a small little nightmare - for which I thank you. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall comment there, with some suggestions for how to go about resolving it, based on how various people have handled similar situations elsewhere. What I am not going to do , at least now, is give an opinion on how it ought to be resolved. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Much thanks. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
the most neutral and obvious and necessary suggestion I could devise (not using the word "alleged" in the lede sentence) having been disputed, I have stepped out of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Police Community Support Officer[edit]

Hello. It appears to me that, whilst attempting to move a page over a redirect, you have accidentally deleted the article instead of the redirect. That is the only way that I can construe the logs for that page and the comments on Talk:Police Community Support Officer which indicate that this redirect was previously an article. James500 (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not know just what went wrong or why, but I fixed it doing the necessary steps manually. There are a number of double redirects to be fixed, but I think the bot will soon fix them. Thanks for letting me know. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad move?[edit]

I think you may have wanted to move Lee Ryder to the userspace of User:XXX Pink Narcissus XXX rather than the non-existent User:Narcissus XXX. You may wish to leave a note on their talk page as that is an alternate account and likely not closely monitored (by the user). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for correcting my misreading. I have moved it, to User:XXX Pink Narcissus XXX/Lee Ryder But I do not know who is the main account; if you do, please notify them. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)[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:Notability (music). 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) 12:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


Ralph W. Moss (writer)[edit]

This is up for AfD. Since you opposed the prod, thought I'd best tell you. That said, I think that our differing reads on this have to do with sources 4-6: note that these don't even mention Moss; they're merely to present the scientific mainstream. Without those, the article looks much worse. 86.** IP (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks; as you recognize, my decline does not necessarily mean I will !vote for keep, I want to hear what others say, and look further myself. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
well I did take a look, andI found he had written a book on the NYT best seller list. My different read initially dealt with the implication of membership on the NIH alt med board, but atthe moment it is based on the half-dozen additional references I found rather trivially in G news archive. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

IP[edit]

I've been using this more than I originally intended. Honestly, that's mainly so that there's not confusion if I DON'T log in for whatever reason. 86.** IP (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

fair enough. Perhaps you might want to adjust your wording to reflect that. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Golden[edit]

I'm an admin and I would support courtesy blanking. Rklawton (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

so I will, tomorrow, because I think it reasonable people in the discussion should see it first. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments re: Peoples Movement Assembly article[edit]

Would you be interested in revisiting the "Peoples Movement Assembly" article to provide feedback as to whether your concerns regarding clarifying the methodology (and, as such, that not any group can use it) and the general tone of the article? Septima2011 (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs[edit]

Hi DGG. You participated in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Standard of review for non admin closes, which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs, it pertains to {{Request close}} and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#Template to request a discussion be closed. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Article for "Ram Kumar Verma"[edit]

Just wanted to notify you that a article already exists for Ram Kumar Verma under the name of "Ramkumar Verma".It had certain issues regarding citations and sources,but I have added certain sources from google books and also tried to include ISBN numbers,infoboxes. Quite obviuosly this person has also been awarded Padma Bhushan ,India's third highest civilian award in 1963 (source from-->Padma Bhushan Awards (1960–1969). But again the name mentioned earlier in the list of awards was "Ram Kumar Varma".I also had to change the name in the awards list.Hope that I have not made any mistake. Vivekananda De--tAlK 06:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of nomination for deletion of Air Napier[edit]

This is to inform you that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Napier. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


Wojciech Nawrocki[edit]

Dear DGG,

I noticed that you removed the CSD template from the article Wojciech Nawrocki. Maybe I was wrong in tagging it that way. Of course Widzew Łódź is a renowned football club in Poland's first division. My problem is just, that I could not find anything at all to verify that Mr. Nawrocki indeed played for that club. A google search delivered no results (apart from a Tai Chi-instructor with that name...) and he is not even mentioned in the Polish wikipedia article for Widzew Łódź. That's why I considered CSD A7 to be applicable. But I see your point, that the article, while perhaps lacking notability, does at least claim such relevance.

Regardless of the CSD, in my opinion, the criteria for BLP PROD are fulfilled. Before placing this, more appropriate, tag, I wanted to hear your opinion on that matter.

Thanks in advance!

Phileasson (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, not being able to verify is an excellent reason for deletion, and BLP Prod is the method designed for that purpose. When I decline a speedy for which Prod is appropriate, I normally do add the tag myself: I would certainly have placed it here, except that I had to leave immediately & couldn't try verify (my normal method is to check both google and the club web site). ( That a person is not in their national language Wikipedia is not always a good test, as each of them have different standards, and often a person in a country with a different primary language may for various reasons add an article here instead--but certainly it was a very good idea to check thee, for there might well have been a substantial article from which at least references could be used.) The alternative to BLP Prod is db-hoax. I'm reluctant to use it outside something impossible or at least wildly excessive--the CSD rule says obvious hoax, & a hoax that takes research is not obvious. BTW, it's very helpful to us admins if, when you do negative search--which is always a good idea when relevant, you say so in the deletion reason or edit summary or talk p.,saying what you checked--then we know where to start, or know not to even try. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the advise. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Phileasson (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


Journal of foreign relations[edit]

Huh.. that's interesting... yesterday, the description field on the facebook page was identical to the wikipedia article, this morning that has been replaced by a single line. I guess they feel the text is more valuable to them advertising on wikipedia? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

However.. should be deleted immediately as a CSD-12 as there is no version without the copyvio (and indeed, expect for one line the whole text is a copyvio) with no prejudice against someone writing an article from scratch without copyvio. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

well, that explains the puzzle. I knew how unlikely it would be that you would have made such an error, but I didn't think of looking back. I suppose they could have written the Wikipedia first, or simultaneously, but for an article like this I'm not about to grasp at straws. Often I rewrite such journal articles myself if I think there is any reason to ==they are often not intentional copyvio, but shortcuts or ignorance, and very easy to rewrite to a stub. This doesn't seem worth the effort. Since it had already reached AfD, I closed it as a speedy delete for the copyvio. Thanks for the careful follow up. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)



Please comment on Talk:Girl gamer[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:Girl gamer. 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) 01:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


Kiefer.Wolfowitz[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, DGG. You have new messages at WT:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz.
Message added 08:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WormTT · (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Logic#Principle_of_explosion_and_my_RfC--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
so I did, but maybe I would have done better to leave well enough alone. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
True, especially if you had not bothered to read the RfC for more than 11 minutes before writing your self-congratulatory sermon.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


Revisit Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs[edit]

Per the comment here, would you revisit Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Non-AfD NACs? Cunard (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello DGG, I am a bit puzzled by this comment. The current discussion is on whether or not non-admins should be able to close non-afd debates, such as proposed mergers and requested moves. Your comment appears to be about non-admins closing afd debates. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
yes, I did make an error: i knew it wasn't about afd , but thought it was about the other sorts of AfD's. I rethink what I want to say. Thanks! I should learn to stop replying to potentially complicated things when I'm in a rush to get out of the house, as was the case here. I've made significant mistakes for this reason twice this week now. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


Haleh Ghoreishi[edit]

Knowing that academia is your specialty, you may want to look at the article to see if it meets the guidelines of WP:PROF. I declined a speedy but looking at the talk page it seems like the person who tagged the article for speedy deletion wants it to be deleted anyways. Thanks Secret account 03:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

not as submitted, but with some additional information, yes. I have explained to the ed. who introduced it what's needed for these academic bios in Wikipedia, as I think they intend to do them for a number of Iranian exiles. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I see JBW does not agree with me; I've commented at the AfD.. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


List of fictional universes[edit]

Your comments at the 2007 AfD for this article were cogent - you pointed out that a category can't provide any context, but this list can. The concerns about it being poorly defined were never addressed, and the article is really a mess; it's completely unsourced and includes many entries that aren't clearly fictional universi at all. Could you help establish some criteria for what belongs? I seem to be the only one participating on the talk page recently, and I think you have the know-how to point me in the right direction for article improvement.--~TPW 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume you have no interest, or no time, else you would have responded by now one way or the other. Thank you anyway.--~TPW 15:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
quite the opposite. How to do this coherently is a complicated problem, and I started thinking about it yesterday and decided to ask some advice of some non-WP friends also. I will try to comment by tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


Why the deletion of Lite Airways?[edit]

Though it is a planned airline, it will be launched soon. Hence, it's notability as an article.

bedcrawl 16:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

once it does start operating , it is likely to be important; at that point, if you have substantial sources for it -- not a mere routine statement about transfer of ownership--then you can write an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


University of Toronto Wikipedia's Canada Education Program Help[edit]

Hello Mr. Goodman, My name is Matthew and I am a student in the Master's of Information program at the University of Toronto in the Knowledge and Information in Society course. I found your profile on the online ambassador page which our instructor directed us to. We had to choose an article and contribute an edit to it. I chose information infrastructure and added some sections to the article. I would be grateful, if you could take a look at it and offer some suggestions, because I am new to Wikipedia.

Thank you, Matthew In4matt (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I will get there tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I'm looking forward to reading your suggestions, In4matt (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for checking the article. I'm going to incorporate your suggestions into the article. In4matt (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed With Invalid Deletion: Bert Oliva[edit]

Hi DGG, I was referred to you as the person that can help me out. I am a student at FIU and need some help with one of my recent projects; to create a wikipage for Bert Oliva(motivational speaker, etc.). "Bert Oliva" was deleted because they said it was a recreation of an older version. I worked with other people including screwball23, c.fred, and others on creating new material, verbiage and references. To be honest "recreation of an older version" is actually a recent issue, we usually get the notability problem. However when we thought that we gave it enough support it was taken down in 2 weeks. How can I get this turned around? I think this wasn't a valid deletion and I am just in need of some help putting it back up. Also I'm not sure if helps the situation further however Fastily, the deleter, is on a month long break, conveniently right after the deletion, and it does say on his alk page this: Admins, in my absence, you do not need to ask for my permission or input to reverse one of my administrative actions. Hope it helps. Thank you very much for your time and help, it is greatly appreciated! --Michaelparks (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have carefully checked the article deleted at AfD and the latest version. There is no question but the latest version is better, but I am pretty sure an AfD on it would reach the same conclusion. If you insist, I shall restore it, and then immediately send it to AfD to see what the community thinks. But at the latest point there were only 3 third party references: a reference to work by him as one of a group , a listing as one of a group of "up and coming young leaders" -- and most of us at Wikipedia interpret u[p and coming" to mean "not yet notable" , and as article where several people were interviewed, without any special emphasis on him. I strongly suggest you not try until you have some more substantial references. I cannot see the purpose of having the article subjected to the discussion it will inevitably have unless there is considerably more than the present. I'm sure Fastily would give the same advice; he's a very careful admin, and would have checked the two articles before doing the deletion, not just deleted mechanically. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay I see. Well I'm not sure if this counts but I found a whole YouTube channel of just testimonials about Bert Oliva. Could that be 3rd party? One guy is a director, some students, a teacher etc. Would that work as a reference point as well? --Michaelparks (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Alas, that sort of testimonial is exactly what we do not accept as a source. Perhaps our policy page on WP:RS may explain it more clearly; to be reliable, the material has to be published under the supervisions of a responsible neutral editor unconnected with the subject. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Nomination of Charles Scriven for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Scriven is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Scriven until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. noq (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraoihp (talkcontribs)

Your note about WP:BEFORE[edit]

Hi DGG,

I am writing to you regarding your note on this diff [2] where you state, "First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE." Perhaps you did not read my stated reason in the PROD of, "I have been unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability of this organization." which clearly stated that I was unable to locate any sources. Or perhaps you are trying to make a different point? Clearly another editor didn't understand your point either with the next edit here [3] which stated, "Not this time - he did look for sources, as did several other people." Could you please clarify what you meant exactly and what you are trying to get at as myself and at least one other editor are not understanding your point. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, I should have worded it more carefully. Even without your note, I ought to have known you would actually have searched, but you did not say where you looked & I think it very unlikely there are not sources, though not necessarily online, and not necessarily sources that will show notability by our usual way of thinking about local religious congregations. I shall now have to look myself, of course. In the last few days i have been trying to cope single-handed with about 3 times the usual number of Prods, most of which confine themselves to the two word phrase "not notable" without further explanation, & are clearly by people who have not looked at all or --judging from the results when I do look; I am apparently getting a little cross about it. I find myself in a two front war these days--against the increasing amount of spam, and against the increasing amount of very poor quality patrolling that is simultaneously missing the spam and tagging the potentially good articles. I know there are other people checking the patrolling, and who care about the spam, but almost nobody who is willing to actually sort out the rescuable articles. I imagine they're discouraged by the low yield--I accept as a fact of life that of 10 deprodded or declined speedy articles, maybe 2 or 3 are going to make it at the end, but I would consider it valuable if the proportion was even less than that. And what is discouraging me most is the obvious PR-writing we have been blithely accepting for years now. I'm getting to sympathize with the people at deWP who are much more restrictive than we are, but accept the obviously important without concern for technical details of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation, DGG. It sounds like you are under a lot of stress. For what it is worth, I think we share the goal of trying to keep the crap out of the encyclopedia, and sometimes just evaluate what is the crap slightly differently.  :) ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
certainly we share the same goal. there will always be a borderline region where decisions are a mater of individual judgement. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)