User talk:DGG/Archive 65 Jun. 2012

ARCHIVES

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

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
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

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

2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (3rd nomination)

fyi ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hoping I haven't made a Wiki-blunder... Mabalu (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. there are many ways to deal with promotional editing, none of them perfect. I've replied further at your talk p. and that of the article DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyan

Hi, you seemed to have declined the Speedy Deletion request with the reason of "not a disam page, Article about the fictional race,including disam from other articles". But, the actual article is here and already placed other disambiguation is on top. Can you further explain to me why the request was denied? Thanks A Person^ಠ_ಠ 23:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that page; I should have thought to check. But it seems there are three uses in WP--that race in Dragon Ball, the Bollywood film, and the village. This is enough to support a disam page, and I have made the necessary adjustments to the wording.

If you think that isn't right, please use MfD, and others will look at it also. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just wanted to see to it that the one of the duplicate disambiguation pages would be deleted Saiyan (disambiguation) and Saiyan, that's why I put up the request. A Person^ಠ_ಠ 02:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19

Given your close of both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18, I thourght I should let you know about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19. I have raised it with User:Gamezero05 here and s/he has replied as to their reasoning. Mt king ^(edits) 23:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply doing EXACTLY what Mtking has been doing on MMA articles. And the MMA articles have been getting deleted based on certain criteria. So if that is what the proper rules are on Wikipedia, I now know. Since I now know the proper rules, I saw the ANTM article and realized it should also be deleted based on the same rules that applied for the MMA articles. I'm just trying to do the same thing across all areas of Wikipedia. I personally don't think certain MMA articles should be deleted. But, they have been constantly getting deleted based on rules such as WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc, so I figure that I am just the one who is wrong and I haven't been editing right. Well, now I know the rules, and ANTM surely does not pass WP:NOT or WP:CRYSTALBALL if the MMA articles didn't. Nothing pointy about it. It's about being consistent. Gamezero 05 01:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's rationale for closing was the guideline WP:POINT, which is a worthy read if you haven't yet. That you are comparing and justifying your nomination by comparing it to the MMA AFDs, rather than the merits of the nomination itself, does support DGG's hypothesis that it was a pointy nomination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did nominate it by rationalizing why it should be deleted. WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc.. I actually find it quite silly that somebody would vote to keep it based on my motives and not based on the notability of the article itself. Seems just as silly, don't you think? Gamezero 05 02:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I waited for almost a full day before I did this--I deliberately waited until others at commented at the AfD, and took before I did the position I was about to take. I then considered whether it in fact was point, since it avoided explicitly making the connection. (You do now admit it, in full capitals, thus confirming my judgment.) But I am not ignorant of what is very discussed widely on WP,and I am not ignorant of expressed and apparent motives and the way people are doing things. I have taken notice along with everyone else of the repeated attempts to spread the MMA discussions into as many forums as possible, and I regard this as another unfortunate example. We normally are rather direct in our approach to forum shopping--as we should be: difficult contested decisions are hard enough without contesting them in many places at the same time or in close sequence, and attempts to do so are cut off at the root before they spread further. ::As I have repeatedly said, I don't personally case what we do about MMA, other than that it should be consistent& a guide to future action--we shouldn't have to repeat the same things every time a new event article is written. There are good arguments for any of several positions, but we must decide between them. We need some degree of stability in order to make progress. Everything here can be revisited, but not revisited continually. Whatever the people who care about the question decide to do, should be done consistently for the next year or two, and not repeatedly challenged. Nor should attempts be made to attack whatever the settlement should be on collateral issues. Those who do so show their determination to get their way at whatever cost to the encyclopedia.

the encyclopedia makes progress not by arguing about policy, but by writing new articles and improving old ones. Our proportion of discussion to action is ridiculously high. Many internet forums are debating societies; reasonably enough, for the medium is very conducive to it. This project is different: it is an attempt to actually do something important. Like many of us, I had years of experience in internet debate on open access before I came here, something of undoubted importance with practical consequences. I was delighted to leave it for the opportunity to take this method of communication, and, instead of debating with dozens of people about how to build something, join with thousands of others to build something directly and immediately useful, DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my gripe... how can some articles such as this ANTM article get through a deletion discussion so smoothly and easily with nobody even thinking of deleting it, yet on the MMA articles, many of which are much more notable and have much more information on them, often have lengthy debates? Then on top of that, 90% of the people in the debates are making points to KEEP and IMPROVE the article, yet in the end it proves futile as somebody comes in and finally decides it should be deleted. What is the difference? Why do arguments like WP:NOT work for deletionists on the MMA articles but not here? What is different? What can I do to keep from getting MMA articles deleted? Because arguing policy is surely not working. There is a small group of people who already have their minds up that they are deleting MMA articles, and regardless of the arguments presented against deletion, in the end they do what they want. Mtking is one of those people putting a bunch of MMA articles up for deletion. Yet when I nominated ANTM 19 for deletion, he contacts you so that you can argue AGAINST deletion. I don't get it. Gamezero 05 05:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are perhaps missing the point, let me summarize: The way you keep MMA articles from getting deleted is to participate in the discussion on them. When you go off and start nominating other articles in retribution, it makes you look bad, and leads to other people looking at your opinions in a much more skeptical fashion. It makes people LESS likely to listen to your MMA opinions, not more likely. You end up shooting yourself in the foot, Hoisted by your own petard, so to speak. You do yourself no favors when you do this. If you want to find a way to keep the most amount of MMA content, then you find ways to seek compromise between the two viewpoints, at the proper discussion page. Ramping up the drama is not conducive to this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point. I have participated in numerous discussions. None of it helped. There are maybe 2 or 3 people arguing policy to delete MMA articles, and 10+ people arguing policy for keeping MMA articles. And the articles are always deleted no matter what we say. No attempts to improve the articles before they are deleted. It just gets deleted outright. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. I nominated ANTM for deletion KNOWING it wouldn't get deleted. The reason for this is to show how ridiculous deletionists are being on the MMA pages. There is nothing about ANTM that makes it more notable or less routine than any UFC event, yet it gets kept without blinking an eye. Some select people are doing everything they can to delete as many MMA pages as possible... and I don't know why. Gamezero 05 16:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis has it right. This is the impression you give. More generally, Wikipedia decision making is inherently very susceptible to zealots and special interest groups, because of our system of relying upon the people who are attracted to a particular discussion. The countervailing force is the general community feeling that any editors pushing too strongly for or against something are probably being unreasonable. This can be unfortunate, when the group is acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and this can lead to stagnation. All groups have some balance of conservative and rashly innovative tendencies. I naturally tend to the innovative side, & have in RL been known to support change even if only for the sake of re-enliving a slow-moving process. But I feel differently here, because the inherent bias of the structure is so far in the direction of rashness that we need some degree of stability--even a stability considerably greater than at present. I do not think that the process of decision making on enWP is necessarily the best one, and there are possible alternatives. But our community is larger and more diverse than any productive open group of any sort has ever been, and so there are no precedents. I regard the entire project as an experiment, and I am inclined to continue the experiment in the present fashion and see how far we can take it. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, there is no point in discussing this further here. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of professional sports leagues

An interesting question has been raised that you might be interested in. Since you have participated in similar discussions and arguably more experience in this particular policy question, you might have some insight that would be helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malls

Since you're in the malls wikiproject, I'd like you to weigh in here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 11:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring HUGGLE Access

Hello, DGG!

I'm not sure if you remember me, since the last time we conversed, I was known as Donald Duck, but, anyway, on August 22, 2010, you revoked my HUGGLE access per a discussion at WP:AN/I because of the frequent mistakes that started at the time of the report, or at least came to light, since it was originally about one thing, which turned into something bigger when the IPs joined the discussion.

I came back on May 1, 2012, and in the time frame of May 1, 2012 through May 31, 2012, give or take a day here and there, as there were some days I did nothing due to school business and other things, I have made hundreds and hundreds of reverts with TWINKLE after making sure it was okay to use with Beeblebrox. In all of those reverts, there was only one mistake made because I had misread the edit, and I quickly corrected myself after the IP had left me a message (see my May 2012 archive), but other than that, all the other reverts have been good. I've done vandal reverts, neutral reverts, and good faith reverts, so I can honestly say that I'm ready to have rollback and HUGGLE rights re-applied to my account.

Thank you for reading this in advance, and I hope to hear back from you. - Zhou Yu (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

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

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonora Moore

I invite you to check improvements made to the Leonora Moore article. While not as overwhelmingly notable as an Oscar winner, nor the "strongest" article on Wikipedia, it's better than what was first nominated. I think that now that the publicist's puppets have been blocked, it serves the project to let it remain and grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

invitation

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonora Moore.
Message added 19:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Did some digging on the actress Leonora Moore. More than just a BLP1E, it seems she is has a sigificant role in the just released film The Taiwan Oyster (itself arguably itself notable under guideline and simply needing an article) under the name Leonora Lim. I think I have presented a valid case for considering retention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possibly; it would be best shown by rewriting the article. Just for the record, my !vote was based on the extreme weakness of the sources, not BLP1E, which I try to use as little as possible. I recognize it's policy, so I am not free to ignore it, but I fundamentally disagree with it. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In setting the basis for a stronger support of Moore per WP:ENT and to point out that WP:BLP1E is an incorrect assessment, I have begun THIS article on her recently released film which, to my knowledge, meets notability through reviews and coverage in such desparate sources as (among those available) Variety, Taipei Times and Austin Chronicle. I will work on the Leonora Moore article itself within some hours. She has not done much (yet) but what she has done is getting noticed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Taiwan Oyster. Now to think up a suitable DYK. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your tags on the Morgan Lens

Come on - the Morgan Lens a standard piece of medical equipment; I think it's pretty neat (mainly because I just found out about it on Thursday when my emergency room used it to treat me after I got acid in my eye); I'm not connected to the manufacturer; and there aren't going to be any descriptions of the equipment that are superior to that provided by its manufacturer. Adam sk (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ah--I was wondering how you came to write it. There should be descriptions in the medical literature--I left a note on your talk p. about what is needed. If you have problems with it, let me know & I'll take a turn at it too . DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Application Developers Alliance

Would like to discuss your deletion of this page. It is not for advertising purposes, but for conversation around the large issues of mobile and app privacy. Working for developers and by developers, the nonprofit startup is not asking for funding but will play a prominent role in educating lawmakers and regulators on technology issues affecting app developers. Please return the article to its rightful position in this encyclopedia.Wikime720 (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please see your user talk p. I suggest you try to rewrite the sandbox article and let me know when to look at it. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the article is now lost, please restore original article in full so that improvements may be made.Wikime720 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not lost, it's in User:Wikime720/sandbox2.0. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

images are lost, will work to better article before re-posting and uploading images. thank you for your advice.Wikime720 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pusat Tingkatan Enam Meragang

Two years ago our school relocated to a new campus. We are a government school located in Brunei (SE Asia). As the person in charge of IT and all things online at our school I temporarily created a new wiki page for our new campus - a new name and location etc. - Shortly after this it was deleted by you and the reason A7 was given. I've been a little busy lately but others have since asked me why we no longer have a wikipedia presence. I would like to complete our wiki page and maintain it as we did our old one. Please tell me what I need to do to get off the restricted list and back up and running. I cannot create a new site because our name is now held in limbo. Your help is appreciated. Our old page was [Tingkatan Enam Berakas] and our new name is [Tingkatan Enam Meragang].Cikgubrian (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was back in 2009. The best way to deal with this is to move the old article, update it, and give a cross reference, all of which I can do. . But I cannot do this unless I have some actual information . The article said merely "Scheduled to open in March 2009, PTEM will accommodate staff and students from Pusat Tingkatan Enam Berakas as they make way for a new secondary school to take over their campus in Lambak Kiri. As details are finalised and made available more information will be posted."

Please provide some information on the talk page of the old article. Include the web site, etc., so I can verify. You also should provide references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Any language will do. I will deal with inserting it correctly. I gather the old pictures are no longer applicable, so you will need to upload one or two new ones with a free license. And see WP:COI and WP:OWN--anyone can edit the p., not just you. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Shouryya Ray

Hi Just read a message from User_talk:Thore_Husfeldt about Shouryya Ray to discuss the page being on the deletion list and you deleted the page earlier today:)

I thought it was a reasonably notable acheivement since I understand the Physics, and it got a lot of press coverage in Germany, UK and Worldwide once picked up.

There are very few problems in Physics and Mathematics that go unsolved for 100's of years and can be solved by a school child.

I will copy the content of the page into my sand box, and would like to discuss restoring it. At the moment I have a lot on so it may be a while between messages. Sorry I did not manage to start a dialogue before the page was deleted.

RonaldDuncan (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you put the previous content, or let me know how to get it into the following page

User:RonaldDuncan/Shouryya Ray

Thanks ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonaldDuncan (talk • contribs) 20:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I managed to get the text from Google Cache, but would really like the edit history so that I can tidy things up.

thanks RonaldDuncan (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I left the article there was a summary of the two problems that he solved with References to Newton, Stokes and Hertz. There are additional refences to Benuouli that need added along with more recent physics and mathematics papers. It would save a lot of time to be able to access the edit history.

I had a look through the talk page for the deletion, and a lot of it seems superficial. I added in that he came second the the competition along with the details of the winner. It would be nice if the competition article was expanded and I would like to move the information from his article into a special page along with a section for past winners in the competition article.

RonaldDuncan (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the article history. The consensus of those knowledgable in the subject was pretty clear that the problem he solved was trivial. An article on the competition possibly could include a list of first place winners--especially if it turns out that earlier winners were in their later career notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks There was a nice summary review by a German Institution on the problem. It might be a reasonable one to put in the competition article since it is Europe's leading competition. RonaldDuncan (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

agreed DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Said Namouh

Notable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For too long we have in effect excessively limited of coverage of terrorism by treating it as ordinary crime. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Return of Margiela

I'm afraid the promotional user/editor you banned before is back, obviously not having learned anything from previous deletion, as USER:MartinMargiela... Mabalu (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked new name, protected the redirect for a while. It is probably possible to write an article on the firm, so I don't want to protect for too long. It looks like you have interest in the subject field; if you want to do it, I will unprotect. Sometimes a short good article is the best guard against an outrageously spammy one. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'll try and get an article together - it's difficult with all the commercial/selling sites and blogs, but I'm sure I can come up with something as there are several good articles/news pieces out there. Thanks!! Mabalu (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RePost Proposal

Mr. DGG,

Hello there! I'm an intern working for a band who's page you recently pulled from Wikipedia (Oh, Hush!). I have rewritten the entire page and was hoping to get your approval before trying to post it again. Please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you!

Tashiapointoh (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Tashiapointoh[reply]

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 as an intern with the band, but it's relatively more difficult: A Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. Don't talk about the overall importance of the subject--talk about what they have accomplished. Remember not to copy from a web site, even your own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable.

The way to have me look at what you have re-written is to post it in your user space as User:Tashiapointoh/Oh, Hush!. When I see you've done that, I'll take a look at it. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

This was an essay (WP:OR) so I PRODed it and then it was removed without any changes and then AfDed it. It was then deleted as G3. I think that it should have been snow deleted per the AfD. I also wanted your opinion that is G3 proper thing for this article or not? Please guide. Cheers! →TSU ^tp* 03:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You understand it correctly. The closure as G3 was not the way to do it, it should have been closed as SNOW, not speedy. This would be only a trivial technical error, except that it should have been closed without making derogatory remarks about it, which were altogether unnecessary. There is an alternative, which I have sometimes preferred in such cases, which is to speedy delete under G2, test page. This is using IAR, and is justified by the virtue of not having to say anything which might be seen as insulting. ( You really should have queried this on the p. of the closing admin--it's not fair to bring it elsewhere first. I've notified the closing admin of this, btw.) DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not asking the closing admin. I'll take care of it next time. Thanks. →TSU ^tp* 08:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Akhtaboot for deletion

Hi, you have nominated Akhtaboot article for deletion. We have previously worked together on improving the article so that it won't be deleted. Can you please let me know what I have done wrong and how can I improve it? --Article123456 (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any references from 2012, please add them. Then it's up to the community to make the decision DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As part of Akhtaboot's expansion, it has participated in many job fairs in Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates in 2012:

Tawdheef Abu Dhabi Job Fair - United Arab Emirates(If you look at the bottom of the page, Akhtaboot has been their online recruitment partner): http://www.tawdheef.ae/
Al Sharjah National Career Exhibition - United Arab Emirates (If you look at the bottom of the page, Akhtaboot has been their online recruitment partner): http://www.nationalcareer.ae/
College of Business Job Fair - Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: http://www.ameinfo.com/294402.html
AUD job fair (please search for the word "Akhtaboot" in the article: http://www.aud.edu/student_services/career_fair.asp

Many universities also chose Akhtaboot to power the career's section of their website with Akhtaboot Microsite solution (a whitelabel of Akhtaboot.com:

King Fahd University for Petroleum and Minerals: http://kfupm.akhtaboot.com , http://www.menafn.com/menafn/1093487940/Akhtaboot-Cares-Initiative-Partners-with-Middlesex-University-Dubai
Middlesex University Dubai: http://mdx.akhtaboot.com
British Uni in Dubai: http://buid.akhtaboot.com , http://www.albawaba.com/business/pr/akhtaboot-career-buid-427030

And many others, do you think the above can be included in the article and is it worthy enough?--Article123456 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add these to the article, and see what people think. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note added later: the article was kept.

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels

Hi. Glad the article has been, for now, restored to its former glory. I was thinking about AFDing it as it was worthless as a stub. Unfortunately, while I read almost all her mysteries I don't have most of the actual paperbacks I bought or collected aeons ago. I do have a couple or so paperbacks and I'll do my best. Yours, Quis separabit? 16:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found the old paperbacks; there were more than I thought. Is it ISBN#s and page numbers you're needing? Yours, Quis separabit? 20:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely said... AfD for Orville (cat)

Your comments in the AfD for Orville (cat). LadyofShalott 04:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded there with a question that is only partly rhetorical as it's really not clear to me what you're suggesting we do to decide such matters. You seem to be proposing that we restrict comment to editors who have some specific power of discernment but what does this mean in practise? Please elaborate. Warden (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am undecided about that we should do in such matters in general. There can be no fixed boundaries for this, as it is not quantifiable. It has to be by the general judgment of the people who care here, which in practice gives great weight to the opposite extremes of sensationalism and snobbery. My only real concern is that we seem to have a bias to including disgusting events, and excluding political ones--my own bias is just the opposite. I'd accept the disgusting if we could get the political. I'd accept any lower level, in fact, if we could get the political. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be lots of articles about political campaigns, elections and demonstrations - what is currently excluded? I would like to see much of that content excluded or constrained as, by its nature, it tends to be too provisional. There not much point in covering a campaign in a speculative way when the eventual result will make much of the speculation worthless. The case of Orville seems different in that its nature seems quite settled and so we are able to write in a reasonably factual way. Its disgusting nature is a matter of style and taste and I fancy I could cover it in a suitably po-faced way. Note that it was I that started the article about The Great Cat Massacre. My tongue was firmly in my cheek but it still seems good to include such topics. Warden (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have always admired your great skill with these topics. People will always disagree about individual cases. To me, the GCM has clear very high notability because of the book, without any irony. I differentiate between history and current gossip. As for politics, tho it is not an exact analogy, I am thinking about the quite successful campaigns to remove articles related to Gitmo, and also articles about small splinter parties, left and right--not of trivial events in political campaigns, where I more or less agree with you about the tendency for overemphasis. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Caitlin's Way episodes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Caitlin's Way episodes 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/List of Caitlin's Way episodes 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 high-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. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I've withdrawn the nom and taken your advice and requested a merger back into the main article until someone can be bothered to actually create an article with verifiable reliable sources. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

harvey shapiro wiki

I am struggling w/the rewrite of the Harvey Shapiro wiki page. Can you please share a few examples of the WP:prof articles that have been deemed acceptable so that I can use these templates as a guideline? Thanks, A Wolfe Wolfeys (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was a professor of music performance at Juilliard, whose important work will not have been his publications, but his performances and recordings -- See WP:CREATIVE. I think merely the evidence that he was head of a section of the NBC Orchestra is undoubtable notability; some people not aware of the importance of this in music may however not fully understand. What is needed to convince them is reviews of his recordings and performances, especially those of him as soloist.. The NYT for the period will have many, but so will the specialist magazines. Just add them, and the article will be fine. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bull Fine Arts Elementary School

I noted your suggestion to merge the above article with Racine, Wisconsin. It would seem better to merge it with Racine Unified School District. However, since the school is already mentioned in the RUSD article, merging would be duplicative. Hence, the proposed deletion. Your removal of the prod will now result in the one-sentence article (which is already included in another article) sitting there for eternity. Mesconsing (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly right that the proper merge/redirect would be to Racine Unified School District--I should have checked. If the material were already there, then a redirect would be appropriate, not a delete. But it is not there adequately, for I see it is just mentioned with the others in a list--some discussion, such as giving the location at least, and possibly the enrollment and date of founding, is appropriate, so it does need a merge.

Nothing here sits for eternity--if there is anything characteristic of Wikipedia, it is our instability. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred Years' War Articles (four)

These articles have either NO references or very few. Much has gone completely unreferenced for YEARS. It looks like pure copyvio almost throughout the articles. Though tags have been placed on them, the tags are simply updated so they do not look as if the articles have been unreference for as long. Attempts to change material and/or add references based on citable material is vehemently fought by a few who, unfortunately do not use that same energy to comply with the guidelines. The template will, on a particular day have England the victor, on another, will have France the victor. Would you please look at these four articles? They need, I think, your unique expertise. Thank you. Hundred Years' War, Hundred Years' War (1337–1360), Hundred Years' War (1369–1389), Hundred Years' War (1415–1453).Mugginsx (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am making some comments on the general article. My interpretation of the writing is that if the material was plagiarized, it was plagiarized from some rather dull textbooks, and probably outdated ones at that. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting there. I did want to correct the idea that I was advocating using old sources and chronicles exclusively. I am well aware of the problems inherent in using those sources. I do think they should be mentioned within the format you recommended as does Norman F. Cantor, Pulitzer Prize winner Barbara Tuchman and other well known authors. The fact is that the editors there have made absolutely no effort for years to use in-line citations and that is required on En-Wikipedia. Because I was and am presently committed to other articles and cannot spend the time on the Hundred Years War articles at this time, I thought perhaps I would give a suggestion for those resources on-line with the presumption that they knew what to do with them and how to use them. Another (minor) thing I wanted to correct was that I am a woman editor. Thankyou again. Mugginsx (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commented again there. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferry or a ship ?

Hi, with respect to a comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ongiara (ship, 1885) I have replied over there, that the title of the sources used in the article say otherwise. It would be informative for me if you can guide me to the specific policy about the notability of ships so that I will take care in future. I was asking this because I don't think all the ferries and boats become notable just by a mere existence. --DBig Xray 08:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is our common practice for ships. Our article about ships is specific that ferryboats, can at least sometimes be better considered ships. I agree with you about boats not being necesarilly notable , and if I am wrong about the nature of the vessel, than the community will correct me. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Smitherman

I added a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Smitherman. You might want to revisit the discussion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

I wonder if you can explain the reason of relisting this AFD there. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

true, I could have closed non-censensus. My own personal view would probably be delete, but I do not see consensus for it, at least not yet, and some of my feeling is the very general one that we should have considerably less celebrity content. I have never or almost never closed an AfD with reasonable arguments on both sides in favor of my own opinion, & I consider LauraHale's a reasonable argument. Admins who does has more confidence in his own superior reasoning power than I have; when I encounter such closings at Del Rev, I often consider them supervotes. The advantage of a relisting over a non-consensus close is that often after a relisting someone else will join the argument who may give a more convincing reason one way or the other, and some people actually look primarily for relisted debates to try to give a clarifying opinion--I often do that myself. I also think the situation might be much clarified by some questions that I just asked LauraHale. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answered. --LauraHale (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hi, I need your help. You saved one of my articles from deletion once. (The Nomination Database for the Nobel Prize in Literature) Now I am being attacked by Arthur Rubin who seems to randomly revert edits and has deleted the List of potential candidates for the Nobel Prize in Literature and proposed three important literary categories for deletion. I have never been in any of the so-called "edit wars" but I believe it is not worth the time. If I am wrong, I am willing to learn. Otherwise I believe it is best to settle it by arguments. I would be grateful for your advice if your time permits. --Anthrophilos (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention the categories:

--Anthrophilos (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I am not the only one. Here's a video on what has happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez6VSdnQleU --Anthrophilos (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very much hope you are not responsible for that video, because it is an extremely improper thing to do. Telephoning the WMF to complain about an admin is useless, if only because the WMF does not control behavior in the individual projects; outside efforts of this type to influence WP tend to produce unwanted reactions. There are plenty of ways to complain in the existing system. WP:ANI exists for the purpose, and if necessary arb com.

As for the Prod, expired prods can be restored on request. Ask him to do it. If he refuses, take to WP:Deletion review. As for the categories, the requests are of course encountering opposition--he has already withdrawn one of the CfDs, & I think the others will be dealt with shortly. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not responsible for creating the video, but I have similar concerns and used it as a means to bring the problem to a wider attention (at the risk of being accused myself). --Anthrophilos (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authority Control Integration

Hi, I've been researching the intersection of Wikipedia and Authority Control, and have just recently made a Village Pump Proposal to create a bot to expand the usage of a template. I've identified you as someone in the sphere of interest to this project and would appreciate your input at the Village Pump. Thanks, Maximiliankleinoclc (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commented at User talk:Maximiliankleinoclc/Authority control integration DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal titles

Hi, I got a question about journal titles for Russian journals that don't have an English edition (or an "official" English title on their homepage or cover or anything like that). I'm not really sure how to answer this and your input would be appreciated. The editor (Solus Ipse) had translated the titles themselves and I somehow think that this may not be the right way to go. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a general rule here: if there is no common english title for a subject we use the one in the language of the subject. But in this case there I see there in fact is an English title. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon D600

You removed the speedy deletion tag and replaced it with the one demanding citations. There is nothing to prooflink in that article. There is no information there. The Nikon DSLR timeline table makes no sense now, because the author placed the camera in the professional section. Personally, I think it's vandalism. But maybe would like to explain why you don't agree? I'd very much appreciate it. BadaBoom (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koidanov (Hasidic dynasty)

Hi DGG: Could you take a look at Koidanov (Hasidic dynasty) and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koidanov (Hasidic dynasty), your input would be appreciated. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have long intended to add content systematically based on the YIVO encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFT5 release coming up - help us design a banner!

Hey all :). First-off, thanks to everyone for all their help so far; we're coming up to a much wider deployment :). Starting at the end of this month, and scaling up until 3 July, AFT5 will begin appearing on 10 percent of articles. For this release we plan on sending out a CentralNotice that every editor will see - and for this, we need your help :). We've got plans, we know how long it's going to run for, where it's going to run...but not what it says. If you've got ideas for banners, give this page a read and submit your suggestion! Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

curiously enough, and rather to my surprise, at the last training session we held in NYC (for a group of junior college instructors), many of the participants were of the opinion that the presence of the article feedback request decreased the confidence they felt in the quality of Wikipedia. I am however not sure of which version they had in mind. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CYGNSS

Hi DGG,

Thank you for reviewing my recent article stub with Nouniquenames. I've been trying to understand what the difference is between 3rd party coverage, and press releases. Could you point me to the Wikipedia guideline (if one exists) that explains this?

Thanks, DavidDavidch12 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I provided about 7 sources over on Noun's Talk page. Looks like most of them just came out over the last couple days. User:King4057 13:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) WP:RS is the guideline on reliable sources. That is likely the best place to start. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Canossian School

My apologies. I should have read the CSD criteria closer. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucratship nomination

Hello DGG I have just nominated you to be a bureaucrat, I hope all of your hard work pays off!!! Obtund^Talk 20:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted; let's wait until DGG decides to run, shall we? - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference the nomination is here. We do need some more bureaucrats. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the offer of a nomination, but I think I can more usefully devote my efforts elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok DGG it is your choice to pick that option, but just know that you are completely qualified to be one. Obtund^Talk 00:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his talents are better used elsewhere, and while I know he would make a fine bureaucrat, he makes a huge difference here on the front line of editing, where his skills are more rare and useful than doing 'paperwork' duties. And he wouldn't have as much time to allow me to pick his brain, so I'm probably a little selfish in this observation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

DGG, thanks for your help on the McKinsey & Company page. I laughed in the talk page when I read your comment, " "a 1993 Fortune profile" -- surely there's something more recent. " -- in fact the firm goes to great lengths indeed to hide compensation, so these figures and citations had to be carefully sleuthed. :) My[2011] (talk) | 20:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of realized that, but someone should have commented in print on this in the last 20 years. I have seen similar situations here quite dificult to handle, because we can not editorially comment. If one knows that an article is well written and researched, missing information is significant; but for a WP article neither part of that can be assumed. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neocleous's introduction to Cyprus law

Do you think this can be salvaged? The article is written by an SPA and is horribly spammy, but that could be fixed if the book is notable. Worldcat shows only one library holding, but Dennis Campbell, Introduction to Cyprus Law ISBN 9783902046215, which is presumably the "widely acclaimed" first edition referred to, is in 33 libraries. How would you assess it against WP:BK? JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a book on the law system of a very small European nation, I would not expect to find much in WorldCat. And it fact, it seems the only comprehensive substantial English language book on the general subject listed there. Books dealing with particular branches, have 19, 6, 2, and 1 copies in WorldCat DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing of surnames beginning with "Mac" or "Mc"

Hi DGG, if you don't mind putting your librarian's hat on for a few minutes, I would welcome your thoughts at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Mac.2FMc_curiosity, on the indexing of surnames beginning with "Mac" or "Mc". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Dennis Brown/CSD

I know you didn't think it was necessary, but I did agree to it and will comply fully. In one month, I will be at 3 months and will have fulfilled my obligation, assuming my own criteria is met, that two admins sign off at that time (I would ask you and Boing! since you've been involved.) I have Sections 4, 5 and 6 ready to review, which should be easy and fast to do in the different format, where I give the opinion, then later on, I give the actual result below it. Only a cursory comment is required on each section if there aren't any errors noted. This assumes you have a little time (Boing has been tied). If you don't have the time, that is fine as well as this is a lower priority than your regular rounds, to be sure. It has been a burden, but a promise is a promise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings. (This invitation sent because you signed up as a member of WP:UWTEST) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

authority control

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Authority Control Integration

I'm surprised that you didn't comment. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I had done so, at Wikipedia talk:Authority control integration proposal. I didn't think I was needed beyond that, though I did just now add my name at the just-started RfC, Wikipedia:Authority control integration proposal/RFC DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia New York City Annual Meeting Sat Jun 30

Join us at Jefferson Market Library on Saturday starting at 1pm for our annual meeting and elections, details at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC!--Pharos (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD film

I understand a film can not qualify for CSD, or a book or a school. It seems this area is grey because it is not about a film but instead the concept of a film. I don't see what the author can do in seven days that will change the fact the film is said to be scheduled for release in 2014. It seems a hoax could survive as long as the prankster fabled it around a book or a film, with a future release date no less. IMO StringdaBrokeda (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even more than a film not qualifying for CSD, a concept for a film, or a concept of any sort, does not qualify for CSD--it's much too uncertain a thing to be unquestionable.. Nor does it qualify for an undoubted hoax, because an undoubted hoax is something that can be seen to be a hoax on the face of it. There have been enough disputes over the application of NOT CRYSTAL to keep that criterion out of CSD territory. If you really want to argue for this, draw up a proposal for WT:CSD, but I think you will find it difficult to word one that will unambiguously apply and not give false positives. And let's avoid WP:BEANS. I don't see that we need worry that something like this would survive, because 7 days will get rid of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I tend to agree with the clarification given. I simply needed the additional perspective. Thank you. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]