User talk:DGG/Archive 67 Aug. 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

Maria Freudenstein

As you have suggested a merge, perhaps you would like to start the discussion on the talk page to suggest why it should be merged—adding WP:INUNIVERSE trivia to a GA-rated article? You must have a rationale for this step, as opposed to the deletion which you removed? - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Rollback

Hi, DGG.

You told me to contact you after July passed regarding rollback, so here I am, contacting you. =) - Zhou Yu (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance with Bloomberg Law

Hi-there. Recently, I've been working to improve the Bloomberg Law article which currently lacks any citation or substantial information. I do some work for Bloomberg and don't want my conflict of interest to interfere with Wiki guidelines, so I have been in talks with Bearian about a draft of the article I proposed. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the bandwidth at this time to help implement that changes and recommended I talk with you. Would you mind taking a look and if seen as appropriate, implement the changes into the current article? My draft can be found here. I truly appreciate your help! --RivBitz (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you asked. Your article is an improvement, though I would have used more of the existing comment and references. But it is promotional. You should replace most of the repeated mentions of the name with a phrase such as "the service' or "it". You use too much PR jargon, such as "real-time" and "all-inclusive predictable pricing model" You have an uncited, though certainly plausible, opinion about the motives of the company-- And it is not reasonable to end with a sentence praising the firm. You might in fact want to look for other opinions on that sponsorship--I would be surprised if someone didn't consider it a potential threat to a free resource, by making it dependent upon a commercial competitor. .

In the other direction, like the earlier article, it is insufficiently detailed. The service consists of a complex of components that needs fuller description--such as geographic and chronological scope. There is no information about financial results, or market share or penetrance. And it is usual to give some information about costs, though not of course detailed pricing. Is it in fact affordable for solo attorneys? Is it found in law schools? Are there academic rates? Is it intended ' exclusively for "lawyers and legal professionals." I am aware that comp-anies often consider some of this proprietary information, but the expectation of an encyclopedia is that it will provide whatever can be publicly sourced, and such things are probably mentioned in the articles about it. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've taken some time to work through the edits you gave me to the draft of Bloomberg Law. I tried to implement them all as you prescribed, but much of the proprietary information is not available through public source, so I was not able to add it. If you or anyone is able to find information to elaborate on these details such as academic rates, pricing details in public sources, I'd be happy to see them added. Let me know what you think of the new draft. Again, I really appreciate your help. User:RivBitz/Bloomberg_Law_Sandbox --RivBitz (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Was just checking in to see if you had a chance to read over the new version of the draft I shared. Thanks!--RivBitz (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kentrigg

I was informed by RHawsworth who grew up here that it wasn't notable...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think Kentrigg is appropriate for wikipedia? I remain convinced that most features which appear on an OS map are encyclopedic. I'm of the opinion that even local tiny hamlets like Goldsland and Great Brynhill are notable which are labelled on OS maps but not on google.. I think wikipedia will become a much more valuable resource if local research is put in on here. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well that I have always defended such material. there is a limit to how local we should go--I do not support articles on local businesses and fire departments. But on towns and villages, certainly. But the article left me a little confused whether it was a village in an organized sense, and whether it is now regarded as a neighborhood. In either case we should cover it, but it would help to have some clarity of what is being talked about. DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its an area of Kendal. But I believe it used to be a separate small village before the city limits expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cablevision (Mexico)

Hi David. before I realised who CSD'd this, I removed the spam, declined the CSD, and tagged for notability instead. As I trust your judgement, feel free to revert my actions, and PROD, or CSD again, as you see fit. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

the other problem is that it reads like a copyvio. Take a look at the way the submitted article used headings. I haven't yet had a chance to check that. I suppose a sufficiently radical stubbification could deal with that also. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had run a check through Google to see if there was any identical text elsewhere, and checking again, I don't think what's left in the stub is a copyvio. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your Message

I did read the policies after you mentioned them to me last time and I was aware that US Government works are in Public domain. I was too fast while seeing the website that I didn't realize that it is a US Governmental website. I apologize for my blunder and I will be extremely careful in the future. --Anbu121 (talk me) 06:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valerius Geist

Sorry, but I don't understand why you reverted to a bare URL on the Grizzly Bear article after I took the time to cover it. -- :- ) Don 18:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

accident in edit conflict. DGG

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Dcshank's talk page.
Message added 18:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

:- ) Don 18:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Arms & Hearts's talk page.
Message added 19:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

– Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Gold Standard's talk page.
Message added 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Gold Standard 20:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed at DRN

Hi. Input is needed about Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Pantheism_discussion regarding suitability of sources for the pantheism article. Your name was selected at random from WP:FRS. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Gold Standard's talk page.
Message added 05:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Gold Standard 05:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decision to delete page Expedition Foods

Hi there, I started writing a page that was speedy deleted and you were the admin who deleted it, although I had left some information in the Talk section stating why I thought it was a valid article. Can I find out what constituted "promotion" in the article as I didn't think I'd put anything in that was advocating or promoting the use of the products. I thought I'd done pretty well at keeping it to neutral facts. I see that there are a number of companies who have wiki articles about them, and I followed the style of these closely, so as not to violate WP rules. Appreciate your response Halojones88 (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. As I explained just now on your talk p. there are some elements of the tone that read too promotionally, but it can be fixed by a little editing,--and therefore it is not a speedy. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures, fiction?

Hi DGG. Long time no chat and I hope all is well. Calling on your library expertise here rather than necessarily your on-wiki expertise. I recreated The Rembrandt Affair (Daniel Silva novel) & gave a courtesy heads up to the deleting admin. He was fine with the recreation as it stated notability but suggested I add sales figures. How do you find those for fiction titles? Is there any publicly accessible resource? Thanks! StarM 01:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never looked for this. I don't think we've ever included it either, unless there's a good news source for it, but the books web page may give some information & I'd consider it reliable for the purpose. What you could easily add is number of weeks on the bestseller list, and its position. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think weeks on the best-seller list might work. If I happen to find copies sold I'll add it but not worry too much about it right now. Author's website is badly in need of an index for finding content. StarM 02:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to my request to have Toysrus deleted

DGG, I was just curious why Toysrus would still be considered useful? The proper CamelCase title for this article has now been created, and there are no longer any links that lead to this redirect (with the exception of a few redirects on some users' talkpages.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if it needs discussion, RfD is the place, to get other opinions. My question remains, why bother removing it? DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that if someone looks up Toysrus, they will see that they were redirected from ToysRUs (proper CamelCase of Toys "R" Us.) That is all. Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Lights, Dark Places (book)

Hi, DGG. I found reliable sources and improved the article to meet Wiki standards. The police officer was written about heavily, was on Fox's "Cops" series, eventually sued the police department for discrimination, and ran for sheriff. The book is about those events and issues. I copyedited and added sourced info, and, afterward, removed the proposed delete tag prior to the seven days expiration. But I just saw in the article's history that the tag was added to with a notation is red saying the article could be deleted at any moment. I removed the tag before that red note was added, so I'm confused about the process. Thank you. AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External disputes imported into Wikipedia

Jokestress (talk · contribs)
James Cantor (talk · contribs)
Gynandromorphophilia (AfD discussion)
Attraction to transgender people (AfD discussion)

I've lost track. Where did we end up with the imported dispute between these two (amongst others)? Because, four years one month later, they're still at it — this time with an article that neither of them actually want us to push our delete buttons on. And in the meantime attraction to transgender people, only just renamed from transfan, is still little more than a dictionary of slang names. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with these people, or tried to. I will not do it further, because one of them has stated that they consider me no longer neutral. When someone sees material as challenging their core identity, it is predictable that the person will get quite upset over it. The only problem with topic bans all around is we lose the good people also, but there is no other solution available to us non-arbs. I would at this point extend it to talk space & WP space as well as article space. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any topic bans or other such restrictions? As I said, I've lost track. There was a 2009 arbitration case that didn't get opened. Was there anything else? Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe any other restrictions are currently in place. I would suggest a 3 month bipartite topic ban followed by a period where all edits tot he areas in contention must be discussed first on the Talk page, with zero tolerance of ad hominem. The disruption this is causing is a huge time sink and we should have dealt with it ages ago. I don't think the parties will accept anyone as "neutral" who does not take their side, the dispute is far too entrenched for us to fix it here, all we can do is separate the warring parties and move on I think. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, and my only questions are why it can be expected to be better in three months, & why you think the talk p. discussions will reach any conclusion. I think what will happen is that whoever violates first the prohibition about add hominem will be blocked, regardless of the merits. But the same thing is what will probably happen if it does end up in arb com. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was reminded of the the Bogdanov Case when I first brought this up. I take it that you think that the Bogdanov Solution — all parties importing an external dispute into Wikipedia shown out of the door — is the appropriate one in this case. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sales figures, fiction?

Hi DGG. Long time no chat and I hope all is well. Calling on your library expertise here rather than necessarily your on-wiki expertise. I recreated The Rembrandt Affair (Daniel Silva novel) & gave a courtesy heads up to the deleting admin. He was fine with the recreation as it stated notability but suggested I add sales figures. How do you find those for fiction titles? Is there any publicly accessible resource? Thanks! StarM 01:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never looked for this. I don't think we've ever included it either, unless there's a good news source for it, but the books web page may give some information & I'd consider it reliable for the purpose. What you could easily add is number of weeks on the bestseller list, and its position. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think weeks on the best-seller list might work. If I happen to find copies sold I'll add it but not worry too much about it right now. Author's website is badly in need of an index for finding content. StarM 02:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to my request to have Toysrus deleted

DGG, I was just curious why Toysrus would still be considered useful? The proper CamelCase title for this article has now been created, and there are no longer any links that lead to this redirect (with the exception of a few redirects on some users' talkpages.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if it needs discussion, RfD is the place, to get other opinions. My question remains, why bother removing it? DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that if someone looks up Toysrus, they will see that they were redirected from ToysRUs (proper CamelCase of Toys "R" Us.) That is all. Steel1943 (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External disputes imported into Wikipedia

Jokestress (talk · contribs)
James Cantor (talk · contribs)
Gynandromorphophilia (AfD discussion)
Attraction to transgender people (AfD discussion)

I've lost track. Where did we end up with the imported dispute between these two (amongst others)? Because, four years one month later, they're still at it — this time with an article that neither of them actually want us to push our delete buttons on. And in the meantime attraction to transgender people, only just renamed from transfan, is still little more than a dictionary of slang names. Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with these people, or tried to. I will not do it further, because one of them has stated that they consider me no longer neutral. When someone sees material as challenging their core identity, it is predictable that the person will get quite upset over it. The only problem with topic bans all around is we lose the good people also, but there is no other solution available to us non-arbs. I would at this point extend it to talk space & WP space as well as article space. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any topic bans or other such restrictions? As I said, I've lost track. There was a 2009 arbitration case that didn't get opened. Was there anything else? Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe any other restrictions are currently in place. I would suggest a 3 month bipartite topic ban followed by a period where all edits tot he areas in contention must be discussed first on the Talk page, with zero tolerance of ad hominem. The disruption this is causing is a huge time sink and we should have dealt with it ages ago. I don't think the parties will accept anyone as "neutral" who does not take their side, the dispute is far too entrenched for us to fix it here, all we can do is separate the warring parties and move on I think. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, and my only questions are why it can be expected to be better in three months, & why you think the talk p. discussions will reach any conclusion. I think what will happen is that whoever violates first the prohibition about add hominem will be blocked, regardless of the merits. But the same thing is what will probably happen if it does end up in arb com. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was reminded of the the Bogdanov Case when I first brought this up. I take it that you think that the Bogdanov Solution — all parties importing an external dispute into Wikipedia shown out of the door — is the appropriate one in this case. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: AfD on Dualist Pantheism

Any input you could provide at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_August_8#Dualist_pantheism would be appreciated. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of castles in Belgium

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of castles in Belgium. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raka, Tibet

Up for deletion..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

with the usual result. But since the article at the time the AfD was placed had no co-ordinates at all or any other location data, the nomination was not utterly absurd. After all, there have been articles written about places that could not be shown to exist. There have been articles written about schools that could not be shown to exist. Both get deleted.

but the circumstances are not routine,.

I see they did check the corresponding article in the zhWP, which has the coordinates. And then they saw the zhWP discussion, which as best as I can make out from google translate considers the article insufficiently sourced. Which it was, considering the copied it from the enWP at a time when the enWP was unsourced. I'm reluctant to write in English on their AfD page to tell them otherwise. They also seem to have a policy against sub-stubs in general, & do not have the policy we do to include them for geographic places. they seem to consider the present version not a sub-stub).

The reason the enWP The reason it is unsourced is the original source you placed, http://fallingrain.com/ , was removed by a bot, saying it was on the blacklist. (It is not on the blacklist now; whether it is a good source is another matter, for it does not show where it gets its data--it certainly seems useful, though) In any case, the link originally there no longer works--the site name is now http:www.fallingrain.com . It may be necessary to look for other places the bot removed it.

I'm trying to track down what happened with respect to the blacklist. I cannot find the discussion in the logs. But then, I've never fully figured out how they do things. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don Cossacks

Dear DGG, sorry for disturbing You. I made some editions in article Don Cossacks, section History with a new references. Some of them are in Russain, so I do an English translation of their title. Can I ask You for checking if it okey for English WP? Sincerely Kravtz (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a general copy-edit of the section. What it now needs most for clarity is dates for each event mentioned, which you can probably add without much trouble--it is much easier to keep track with dates when reading the article, than with just the names. As for the references: Ref 3 does not work for me; as for the others, though I do not think you have made any errors, I have adjusted the wording to clarify the nature of the reference. I might help also to identify some good comprehensive English language books that deal with the subject, & I will give it a try. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for organization of that section. Yes, its seems to me the same. Problem for articles on WP about Russian History that they are not integrated in global history dates. Modern russians that I met mostly know names and some nuances, but not in context with the rest of the World History. So I will try to do something at least with what Im interesting about in the subject. Best regards from Middle Europe! Kravtz (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Freudenstein

Dear DGG:

I would like to why my article on Maria Freudenstein was altered and deleted. I provided all the necessary sourcing with the appropiate footnotes. No sourced contradictory information was ever provided. In fact, I provided more than enough documentation. I have made a request that this page be restored. Perdogg ( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It was not deleted, but rather I took what I thought the best course to rescue it from being deleted. Another editor wanted to delete it, and in fact has complained above about my decision to even merge it. It is now redirected to the section on "Property of a Lady" in the article on Octopussy and The Living Daylights-- the book containing the only significant story where the character appears. Had I done nothing, it would now actually be deleted. My general idea is that it is better to have one strong article than several weak ones More specifically, I myself have some doubts whether an article on a character in what is only a short story (and not a particularly famous short story either) would really be appropriate--any more than, say, individual articles on the characters in the other Bond short stories . This was not technically an administrative decision, but just an editorial change, and anyone can revert it. I suggest you consider whether you want to do that, for it will almost certainly be nominated for deletion at afd -- and probably either be deleted or just redirected back again. Instead, I suggest two alternatives: One would be to add the rest of the material from the separate article to that section. The other--and I think the best course actually, would be to write a separate article on Property of a Lady, and have the information on the character redirect to that. I think that individual articles on the James Bond short stories could easily be justified if anyone were to challenge it. If you really on consideration think it would do best as a separate article, you can do it yourself, but to be realistic I think it will fail to accomplish your goal. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

If it is going to be merged I would like that most of the materal I wrote be included. I worked hard on it and would hate to see that time go to waste.

Thank you for your response Perdogg ( talk ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.25.102 (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I do not see anything in the article to indicate that any thing was merged into the article. There is some one who has been trying to edit my article without providing any sourcing for his/her edits. Perdogg ( talk ) — —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I will check in a day or two, but the normal course is for you to suggest on the talk page just what material that you think should be added. It's still there in the page history of the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not see any of the material I wrote. I am getting really annoyed with this. First of all my article is challeneged by some one who does not present any facts only opinions, then it disappears when it does not confirm his view of the world. What is the deal with this?

Perdogg

Alpha Card Services A7 CSD tagging

You tagged Alpha Card Services for speedy deletion. It seems to me that the presence in the "top lists" of Inc Magazine and Philadelphia Business Journal are enough to avoid an A7, particularly as they are already Sourced. Other content in the "Awards, honors and publications" section might also be enough. I know you are an experienced editor and careful about speedy deletion -- Did you see something that I missed? DES ^(talk) 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I consider the top list of such a large size as routine publicity, not importance. But perhaps they can be excused for thinking otherwise. I'll use AfD DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. Certainly more would be needed at AfD. I tend to set a rather low bar for A7, as so many legit articles start in such poor shape. I will research and probably comment at the AfD, one way or the other. Thanks for your response. DES ^(talk) 00:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: AfD on Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability

Any comments on this [1] AfD would be appreciated. Yfever (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commented, DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 21:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Intelligent Energy Storage

(Aknordstrom (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)) Hello DGG, in writing this article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intelligent Energy Storage, I tried to be as neutral as possible. This is a type of technology, not a company. Can you expand on how this looks like an advertisement? I am aware of two other applications that would fit this news article. If I included those and they are not part of the company discussed, would that be more acceptable? Any suggestions and advice would be much appreciated! Thank you for your time.[reply]

responded DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Buzzlines Travel Ltd

Hello there,

I was wondering how i could improve my article. I'm struggling to get it fit and relevant for Wikipedia, I don't know what else i can do. I was wondering if you have any suggestions on what i could do to make it wikipedia worthy.

Regards,

RT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzlin35 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all , here is not even a real indication that the firm might be important. A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. You do not have any. Until you have them, there is no reason to continue to try to write the article, for it will not be accepted here, no matter how well you write it.

As for promotionalism, include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to prospective clients --that sort of content is considered promotional. Among this is a detailed description of the interior of your coaches, selling points about how convenient you are to particular tourist destinations, Do not stress routine trivia, such as that you have been government certified as meeting the minimum requirements, and are a member of the usual industry associations. You are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. I am not really sure whether there will be enough suitable content for an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for constructive criticism regarding recent edit -- Story of Dao

Hello,

I was wondering why you considered the "Currently in Development" section of the page I created to be "promotionalism for film still in pre-production?" Was there any specific part of it that you felt gave it an air of promotionalism?

The reason I ask is simply because I would like to be able to add the section back in, and at the same time I of course need to make sure that the section is fit for Wikipedia. The information is undeniably relevant to the company, and it is no violation to Wikipedia to write about films still in development, provided that there are relevant and reliable references (for example, Pitch Perfect). In addition to that, I think that the way the article began with the "History" section and ended with the "Currently in Development" section gave the page a nice progressive, chronological movement and added to the article from a readability standpoint.

Here is what I had in there originally, minus the citations so that I don't clog your page (though I can add them in if you're curious to see what they were and where they went):

ArgoFilms is currently in pre-production for The Story of Dao, the company’s first full-length feature film. The film was inspired by the life of an elephant named Pang Dao, whom Argo first encountered during the filming of The Urban Elephant for PBS Nature and National Geographic.

The Story of Dao is a dramatic feature film that follows the life of an elephant born in the 1950’s. Though semi-fictional, the main character Dao is based on the biographies of actual elephants living in Southeast Asia. The story spans 50 years, allowing the audience to witness history as it unfolds: the forests shrink, illegal logging and drug trafficking flourish, elephants beg on city streets, and tradition erodes until finally a new attitude toward elephants begins to emerge.

The Story of Dao began pre-production in 2011. The film’s Kickstarter campaign, surpassing its $20,000 goal, funded a six-week scout in Southeast Asia. Magazines, websites, and blogs have begun to feature the upcoming film, which has a target release date of late 2014. The film is expected to have a companion book to be published at the time of the film’s release.

Thank you for your input! This is definitely a learning process for me, and I appreciate your help in making this article the best it can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.b.bellingham (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have done differently--looking again at the article, I consider it essentially an advertisement, and a poorly made one at that. It would need so much rewriting that it qualifies for WP:CSD G11. the only reason I did not delete it before is that the subject is after all notable--or would be, if third party sources support the awards listed. I have deleted it accordingly. When you rewrite it , write in a plain descriptive manner. Give third party published citations for every award listed; do not rely on Imdb. Do not rely on the firms's web page. List the films either in paragraphs or a list, not a table. Avoid puffery and adjectives of praise. Avoid extensive discussion of motive. And see WP:CRYSTAL for why we do not include information about films that are not yet in principal photography.

The worthiness of a cause is irrelevant. WP does not promote causes, films, or individuals. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thank you for the input.

Not surprisingly, I do not agree with your decision to remove the page. It was frankly of a higher caliber than many production company pages listed on Wikipedia, not to mention that the company is notable for its associations and awards. I do, however, understand if you wanted additional sources listed for these awards and associations. I was previously not aware that IMDb was not considered a reliable source for information on films.

My main dilemma is that I don't understand your comment on the table. It seems that a lot of very good articles use them to display production credits: Warner Bros., 20th Century Fox, and DreamWorks Animation, for example. I therefore disagree that a table is a poor tool to use in this scenario. Was it the awards being listed this way that you objected to?

Also, what do you mean "The worthiness of a cause is irrelevant?" As I never mentioned that any information was included due to relevancy, I am a little confused by this statement. Are you referring to my comment that the information was relevant, or is this a different issue?

Thank you for taking the time to answer my previous questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.b.bellingham (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been a little too sharp in what I've just said above--it's the end of the day for me. I will take another look tomorrow. The article does need some extensive fixing, but quite possibly I can rewrite the article adequately-- It's more a matter of tone than anything else. I have the impression from the article that the importance of the cause affected the tone. so, for the moment, I have restored the article. I'll do some work on it tomorrow. What I would then need from you is the third party references for the awards. And I will get the new film in there somehow. My apologies. . DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I genuinely appreciate all of that. I'll work on tracking down individual references for the various awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.b.bellingham (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_11#Paul_Atherton

Hi DGG, Be most grateful if you could clarify what is supposed to happen through deletion review. Noticed both yourself & S Marshall both suggested either putting it back to AfD or reinstating. How long does this normally take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanda Paul (talk • contribs) 07:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Del Rev discussions normally last for 7 days, though they can be closed earlier. Having commented in it, I can not also close it. Any admin who think it sufficiently obvious can do so.

As for improvements: Mostly you need better references-- 3rd party references from mainstream magazines and newspapers. There should be more emphasis of the work which would make him notable, and less on the details of his early life and his first few jobs that seem irrelevant to notability . You also need to adjust the tone so it gives a plainer & more formal description of his work--at present, it reads to me like something written by a friend. It would help to have fewer but longer paragraphs. It would also help to change the references to the WP:CITE format--it will make it clearer the degree to which they are reliable r

There are also improvements needed in some of the supporting articles. The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus need 4rd party published references--it presently has none. Ditto for some of the other films. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. As you appreciate, the article having been on Wikipedia for 5 years, has had many Wikipedians involved in it's editing and is vastly different from the original article I posted then, so I'm conscious not to erode their work. However, will address your points as best I can.

In regard to my recent improvements increasing the references provided to 17, 7 are National Publications (Newspapers & Magazines- which I would argue as least weight in a notability argument), 2 from a National Archive (which I would say gives it most weight), 2 are self appearances in documentary Films, 1 is National Television, 4 from Industry Defining Trade Publications (again I would argue, much greater weight than simple publicity, from consumer driven press) & 1 from an Alumni Publication. Are you suggesting that notability is measured by popularity as covered by consumer press or have I misunderstood your point? Amanda Paul (talk 11:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16:33, 19 July 2012 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/InnoTech Manufacturing, LLC (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement)

I am the one who created the website for InnoTech Manufacturing, so those are MY words to begin with. How do I go about either restoring this and getting it approved or getting the old article information and re wording it (as it took me a very long time to create). Please advise. Eabrookman (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you a copy, but you must first activate your email from your user preferences page. Doing so does not disclose your email to me, unless you choose to reply to it.

If you wish to give permission for its use, you must explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing, using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials; be aware that these licenses give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes. There are two ways of doing it, either by placing the necessary copyright notice on the web site, or by sending the licensing information to OTRS, as explained at WP:DCM.

I do not suggest you do this,, however, as the article would have to be extensively rewritten in any case. Even had there been no copyright violation, the article would not have been accepted for two separate reasons: it is entirely promotional, and there is no indication that the company is notable. in the sense I am about to explain:

A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. I see no such references: even the Mt. Vernon newspaper article is a straight copy of a press release, not independent reporting. If you were the first company to introduce such ramps, there should be articles in the industry press saying so. A patent is not evidence of notability --if your patent was in fact exploited widely, in might be, and there should be references from the trade press or similar sources saying so, and they must be given. Without such sources, it will not be possible to write an acceptable article. Wikipedia is not a commercial directory, but an encyclopedia, giving information about those organizations that readers might reasonably look for in an encyclopedia--those that have accomplished things sufficiently important that independent sources write about them in published material.

Then, 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. . Sentences such as "With over 70 combined years in the construction industry, the principles of InnoTech have consistently made innovations which save time and resources for various construction projects." are empty puffery, not information, even if they were properly documented. A good first step is to try to use as few adjectives as possible.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the firm and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the firm, or to prospective clients --that sort of content is considered promotional. An example of such unencyclopedic content is your list of products. I do not think that you had the contract to build a rooftop ramp system for one building is Disney world is sufficiently important either, but if it is, then there will be published sources about it.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's much more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. I

If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, and submit it through AfC again, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity and sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Ward (2nd nomination)

You were the one who helped to teach me that ANY information included in a BLP had to be sourcable... even if it is a minor fact about being a former college footall player. That the Billboard articles are not loading today does not mean they do not exist. Maybe their servers are having a problem, but at the time I offered them as sources I was reading them. When a nominator claims someone has received no notice, it is importnat to show the error of that nomination statement. As notability, you taught me that such is is not determined by what a source writes, but through the fact that they do write something. We may disagree, but the GNG and WP:MUSBIO #1 are met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remain somewhat disturbed by the nature of some of the keep arguments, but I defer to you in this area. I've explained my reasoning there, and changed to "uncertain" DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am myself disheartened by the unneccessarily tone of some of the keep arguments, but even more so by the tone of the nomination statement itself. While improperly argued keeps might be attributable to newness, I would have expected the more experienced nominator to have been more neutral in his opening statement... instead of his making disprovable assertions in a manner that would act to goad a newcomer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

micro RNAs -- Thanks!

Hi there!

Regarding the message you left on my talk page, I just wanted to say thanks for helping out there. As a relatively new editor, I'm still trying to figure things out; even though I've learned pretty quickly, I still make a lot of mistakes (see my talk page if you don't believe me....), and just wanted to say thank you for catching something that could have been bad.

How would I go about making such a list article, and then redirects, without destroying the ability to make the pages or cause loss of references? I'll be honest, part of the reason I suggested it in the manner I did was because I didn't know how to do it myself, and so couldn't be BOLD.

Thanks again for your help! (And for not biting...seriously, there's a lot of that on my talk page. :/ ) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the little hoo-hah here

David. See User:Shirt58/Crest Secondary School. I don't think it would pass muster as an article. I was (very briefly) a secondary school teacher, but shh, that's just between the two of us, ok? Pete, aka --Shirt58 (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had not actually noticed that it was not yet open. Certainly it will be notable when the school actually opens--we have previously deleted high school articles when they were just in the planning stage. But I'd be prepared to support it even now under the GNG with another news article, especially with the argument that on the basis it was something special. For the general rule, see WP:CRYSTAL. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For precisely one of the reasons you mentioned - "another news article" - I'm happy just to keep this in my userspace for now, until "Crest Secondary School" actually starts teaching students. The Straits Times is arguably the "Journal of record" for Singaporean matters. But a G-news + Straits Times + Crest Secondary School search yields nothing that would support creation of an article of that name right now.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parney Albright

Thanks for your thorough critique. I appreciate it. I have posted a quick rewrite, and will incorporate your suggestions tomorrow, including using Parney's official parent-given name, although no one knows him by Penrose. Please give me a day or two to fix the stuff you've mentioned. I'll also pass it along to the NIF folks.Lseaveratnif (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hobart Chatfield-Taylor

Thanks for the note, I shall do that. I've been perusing The Bookman (New York) archives and writing bios on random folks I run across. Been trying to do book lists for some of them, such as Edwin Pugh, so I'll dig into H.C. soon. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the edification of DGG talk-page stalkers: done! Also note that the list on IMDB is misleading in that it includes a few publications that are actually just articles, not separate books.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to my speedy deletion request on Proposal software

Hello DGG. I just wanted to take some time to say ... thanks. I can tell that you are a very reasonable editor (and administrator, in fact) and I can tell that you take time to educate others in how to improve their work. Definitely serves a greater purpose than a quick speedy deletion. Just wanted to acknowledge that ... I could definitely learn from your methods. Anyways, take care, and thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer (2nd nomination)

Since you recently participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer, I'm notifying you that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DVBViewer (2nd nomination) has been opened. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gardiner

Dear DGG - thank you very much for accepting and editing the article on Patrick Gardiner. I was impressed by the speed and efficiency of the process! One question - do you think it would be worthwhile for me to put a note in the 'talk' bit of the page, encouraging people with relevant knowledge and expertise to expand it a bit? I did not attempt to write anything about the content of his books myself because I don't have the background. Many thanks again, User:TuttiFruttiCherryPie TuttiFruttiCherryPie (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bio article

Why did you remove the article "Parney Albright"? There were tons of references, and he is definitely someone who deserves to be in Wikipedia.Lseaveratnif (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

responded at some length. on your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Electriccatfish2's talk page.
Message added 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Electric Catfish 01:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Contractors of Australia

Hi DDG, I have made quite a number of deletions and changes to try to address the advice you gave me on the page Independent Contractors of Australia. Does it now meet the requirements? should I submit it again? Henry Austen Henry Austen (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see your talk page--you have not yet been sufficiently bold in doing the cutting--I made some suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A user you warned

Last month, you gave Kliang0725 a final warning about soap boxing, advising them if they did it again they could be blocked. As you can see at the bottom of their talk page, they appear to have done it again. AutomaticStrikeout 17:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done. That it was attempted this time by using a misleading title puts it in the class of deliberate vandalism. I have protected the page under the specific name against re-creation indefinitely, and the generic name for a while, because it might be needed elsewhere.. As yet other names are possible, please be on watch. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your help. AutomaticStrikeout 20:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Petronius Taurus Volusianus

You tagged this article last month for copy/paste concerns but didn't indicate a source. Can you say which source you think it is copy/pasted from and whether you are concerned with copyright issues or simply duplicated wording and/or plagiarism from some public domain resource? Anything you know would be much appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Just wondering if you overlooked my question. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is my RfA.
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burch Creative Capital LLC

Hi,

I recently posted an article about Burch Creative Capital LLC. Can you please shed some more light as to why it was deleted? I work for a family office/venture fund and we recently changed our company name so we wanted to launch our wiki page in conjuction with out new website - burchcreativecapital.com. I added some more references/external links to the new Burch Creative Capital wiki, but it still seems to be pending. Can you please explain to as to why it was deleted. I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you.

Best, Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbalanevsky (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see Orange Mike's comments on your talk page--they are just what I would say also. I'll add that a WP 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 use adjective praising the company, its clients, or its work. . 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. (Thus, there is generally no purpose in giving permission; it is better to rewrite.)

Such phrases as "As a Creative Capital firm, the company has a decidedly different approach to creating value" is pure advertising. It belongs in your advertisements, not an encyclopedia. The list of prior investments belongs on your web page, not an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only or primarily to prospective clients --that sort of content is considered promotional.

And you will also need 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. If you have such references, it might be possible to write aa proper article. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dockkcod/sandbox

As an administrator, would you move User:Dockkcod/sandbox to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/My Man Is A Loser? I would move the page myself but MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist prevented me, administrators can override the list however. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Does this meet NFILM, though? DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, I'm going to decline the submission later today as non-notable. If you are available, would you also help me with another article-related request? Would you tell me the author who started Quran Academy the second time? The author may be the same user who started the first article and may be relevant for an AfD nomination I started. Thanks again! SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so many people have worked on each of them since 2006, that I'm not sure it's relevant. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjuman Khudam-ul-Quran.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation

Regardless of its outcome, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to participate in the DRV on Margo Rey. I appreciate it. Best regards... Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Francis Anhalt

As an editor with much experience in locating and reviewing sources, would you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Francis Anhalt? Do the sources seem valid, and is the subject notable? You've commented about the topic before at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dreduardoa/sandbox. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've since found the actual sources that were referenced in the article. I believe they fulfill WP:GNG and provide adequate coverage for the individual as an event promoter and the founder of this banking organization. I'd recommend looking them over. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fominskiy Leonid Pavlovich

I refused CSD#A7 on this one, but it is a mess. I figured you might actually know something about the subject matter, enough to clean it up just a bit, so wanted to bring it to your attention. If you have time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wonderful example of really bad translation --in this case, I don't thing Google translate, but just a primitive job of manual translation. He's almost certainly notable, and I'll rewrite it. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Dainomite's talk page. daintalk 23:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Historical Plaque Project

DGG: Thanks for your feedback on The Berkeley Historical Plaque Project entry. I'm new to Wiki creation so I value your input and suggestions. I wrote the article in an objective manor with references that I have available--no attempts were made to promote or raise money. I also tried to be detail oriented and informative as opposed to some related Berkeley historical organizations. Would Wikipedia prefer if I were less detailed? (ex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Architectural_Heritage_Association & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Historical_Society). It was my intention to be more informative but perhaps that is putting the post into an area which becomes difficult to substantiate. Furthermore local press has referenced the project in a limited way at this point so web references are difficult for now. I do have this one new article which I'm going to add to the entry now (http://www.berkeleyside.com/2012/08/13/berkeley-historical-plaque-project-crowd-sourcing-history/).

Thanks in advance for your help with this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkehlmann (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised there is not more press coverage. You might double check on this with the Berkeley Public Library, which may be able to help you find additional sources. Then, you need to carefully check that you are not copying anything from their web site, and adjust the wording to be a little less like that of an advocate for the project--the last paragraph is the most problematic.This all should be doable. When ready, just let me know here and I;ll review it again. I think an article is certainly possible. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Joseph_Nadler

Thank you very much for your assistance, it is very much appreciated. (Tarpoon88 (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Robert Sandford Stewart

You summarily rejected an article written about the above-named Swiss-Canadian entrepreneur. This was only a draft awaiting references and not suggesting immediate publication. However, your background and discipline would tend to make you a prejudicial critic of the subject not worthy of arms length assessment and editorial comment. There is far too little commentary in Wikipedia on prominent businessmen and their contribution to society. These people are decidedly not academics mired in the typical "publish or perish" tradition of academia. They would rather work hard in their deeds rather than their printed words to improve the human condition (sometimes for millions of people) rather than selfishly project their own narrow academic focus on life in writings. Prior to engaging in what could possibly be a protracted and difficult relationship with an editor over a subject that is obviously far off his normal base, I would ask that a more relevant and closer associated editor be appointed to review the article which falls under the category of international trade and commerce rather than academia. Is that possible, or is this forum decidedly inflexible in how it approaches how it controls and polices its public contents? What all the contributors to its content are seeking here is advice on how to improve the article as it does not fall under the normal category of academic or encyclopedic content but like many people in the world, there is a message worth telling to others. Dawlat Baba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawlatbaba (talk • contribs) 08:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My background here, which you apparently don't know, is that I am one of the most active people in trying to keep bios of businessmen, and trying to edit them myself if they need some help in meeting the rules. Once this article comes anywhere near acceptable, I'll help it also. I've helped a few hundred such articles stay in WP, even if it sometimes means rewriting them myself. The article you submitted, which anyone can see, is entirely unreferenced. We have a policy that unreferenced BLPs are deleted. Any reviewer would have been wholly irresponsible to move it to main space, for it would have lasted just 10 days: seeWP:BLPPROD, a policy I must enforce. Were I to refuse to do so, the community would be right to question my fitness to remain an administrator. If our forum were not "decidedly inflexible in how it approaches how it controls and polices its public contents" in this respect, people would not use it , for why should anyone trust material without references?

The purpose of AfC is to help get articles improved, and you now have the opportunity to do so. The first thing that must be done is to add 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. I would normally have deferred helping you with the rest until there were some sources, because if there are not the article will never be accepted here and rewriting would be useless. However, since you apparently want some more assistance,and certainly seem to need it:

You also need to focus on the important parts: he has been associate with a large number of different companies as an advisor, and some of these diverse positions have presumably been more important than others. You need to specify his roles in a way that people call tell which ones he was actually the effective party--many people advise on a project or are associated with it. You also need to remove the promotional material on the merits of his work; what goes in an encyclopedia is the facts of his work, from which the readers will be able to evaluate the merits on their own. The section of "first land based circumnavigation" needs sources to show that it is a circumnavigation, that it is the first such, and that people consider it important enough to have written about in 3rd party sources. And the general conditions in Africa during the period he worked there are covered by our articles on the subject and should not be repeated.

Any experienced person here would have rejected the article for lack of sources; very few would have gone to the trouble of giving you such a detailed explanation after such an unpromising beginning. But I'm an optimist that the article can be fixed, and an optimist also that you'll actually do it. If it's good enough, I'll accept it, if it's almost good enough I'll fix it and accept it, if not, I will not. Should someone else accept it and I think it not yet good enough, I'll either fix it anyway or nominate it for deletion. I will not summarily delete it as an admin, because even now it meets none of the very limited requirements for that. DGG ( talk ) 14:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. As there were no comments previously, this is the sort of advice I was expecting rather than the summary execution previously of the proposed article. Could you please provide the references (as you generally request are needed) for five (of the hundreds you have completed) prominent international business people for whom you have drafted or edited their biographical insertions on Wikipedia. I will use these as the benchmarks for adding the appropriate references to Mr. Stewart's interesting and instructional career. Dawlat Baba. 11:17 21 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawlatbaba (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the terseness of our automated notices, but , actually, I thought the basic information that there were no references would be sufficient information to get you started fixing the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a vanity publication, and all material must be justified by sources. The references needed are for this person, not other businessmen. You seem to be under the impression that I need to justify myself to you; the actual situation is that you need to justify the article by our standards, I am telling you just the basic things that i would have expected anyone to know before writing an article here, and that apply to everybody. You will find basic instructions at WP:FIRST, and the formal standards at WP:BLP. WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS, I have no monopoly in dealing with the article: You are welcome to ask anyone else for help whom you please. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir:

Could you please just give me one businessman's biography that you have written so that I can try to copy the style and intent of references. If you have done hundreds as you say, you will know that it is extremely difficult to reference the accomplishments of most businessmen. They tend to publish only the balance sheets of their companies which are used as a general guide to some of their personal success. Private company results are never published. These people shun publicity, because most are shy and work alone. They refuse most interviews, academic hallmarks, publications and the like. They see their contributions in life as actions, not words.

With an article that displays your talents for referencing people like Mr. Stewart, I will perhaps know where to look for specific references on him. Some genuine Heads of State, Cabinet Ministers, other CEO's rarely leave themselves open to press interviews fearing unwarranted criticism or wrongful interpretations. Millions of people who benefitted from the early unearthing of the disease HIV-AIDS would not even know he exists. His actions were done in secret as were many dealing with corruption and other unacceptable business practises against which he has fought all his life. Perhaps you do not appreciate that some people's lives are gravely at risk by exposing them unnecessarily in public.

As a biographer, I am sure you can sympathize with those of us struggling to fit someone larger than life into your rigid format which of course is required to bring objectivity. But not being an academic who works in words, Mr. Stewart is an "action man" who circumnavigates the world constantly, leaving multitudes of change for the better in his wake. But I cannot afford to follow him wherever he goes taking photos and getting journalists or editors to write down everything in third party definitions that confirm all of what he accomplishes. It would slow him down mercilessly, and I am sure he would outright reject the need to do it until he dies.

I apologoize for my persistence, but I am sure you have had to deal with someone who has worked in the shadows all his life and despises publicity. He does not see himself as a public figure, only someone who makes a valid and appreciable contribution to mankind every day by thought, deed and action, leaving out the printed word as his method of influencing anyone. If he saves a life, improves someone's wealth who would otherwise be impoverished, or creates an opportunity to introduce world-beating technology that transforms millons of lives in a positive way, he would rather do it that talk or write about it, or have someone else eulogize him for the effort. He just wants to do it, and leave it at that.

Mr. Stewart falls into all three categories used in Wikipedia to define the "Law of the Few". He is one of those rare one in a million who is connector, a mavern and a salesman. He brings people and ideas together that change the course of history through actions he undertakes himself and incites in others. He is always the last one to benefit from his deeds, but he enjoys connecting hundreds of people to make substantial improvements to the human condition. Try to document that! He knows hundreds of heads of state, miniters, CEO's, and leaders in many fields of endeavor. They will all tell you he is a rare and exceptional human being who has dramatically changed the world. But he doesn't write about it. He is too busy doing it quietly on his own!

He has done it for the sufferers of AIDS, the invention and public dissemination of VoIP (lowering dramatically all long distance communications costs worldwide) and he is about to do it twice more. One is with the implementation of a new method of payments around the world that does away with credit cards, and eventually banks altogether. His other passion is a Hybrid Air Vehicle that is about to change the meaning of flight. This will introduce an air vehicle that combines a regular aircraft, helicopter, hovercraft and dirigible. It will open up 90% of the untouched, remote corners of the world. I guarantee that you will never hear his name associated with it, but without him, it will never happen. How do you document that?

Regards, Dawlat Baba 16:49 CET 21 August 2012

P.S. As an expression of his dislike for publicity, he has donated every penny he or his companies ever earned to charity and lives very modestly in Northern Italy. But he deserves not to be forgotten. Several biographers are trying to bottle his energy and initiative before he quits. Others would truly benefit from understanding how he succeeds without publicity on himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawlatbaba (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you find our rules too rigid in requiring documentation of what is said, especially about living people. If someone's career is undocumented by reliable sources, And it is not he who must have written about it for it to be included, but independent third parties in reliable published works. how can there be an article about it in a work of reference? How can a work of reference which makes claims for not being advertising rely only on what someone says about himself? All administrators here have had to deal with many articles proposed about people who "have sat in the shadows all their lives"--none of them have biographies here. A serious drive was mounted two years ago to remove any which had indadvertedly been included and could not be sourced, and we have remained vigilant ever since. If any have found their way here, please notify me so they can be deleted. This is something about which we never compromise, and if I permitted any compromise I would in very short order lose my ability to decide on deleting obviously unsuitable articles. I am as bound by the rules as everyone--and for a rule like this, I would not wish it otherwise.

The material you have inserted above amounts to unsourced praise for him, the sort of thing we call puffery, and that violates another of another of our most basic rules: WP may not be used for advertising or advocacy or publicity of any person or organization or cause, however worthy, and the intrinsic worthiness is irrelevant,, especially when not supported by sources The rule on promotionalism and on the need for sourcing have an obvious connection. If you continue to add such material you will be blocked from participating. This discussion is at an end. If you wish the article to be considered, add reliable sources. If you wish to ask anyone else for advice, do so. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aaty87/MD Rabbi Alam=

I am a little puzzled at your having declined the AfC with the reason " The content of this submission includes material that meets Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you." with the contradictory and incompatible edit summary "Declining submission: submission lacks inline citations " I can think of several reasons for declining this article, including the unlikelihood of encyclopedic notability , but I do not see how citation format is a reason for declining this or any other article, considering that except for special cases such as potentially negative BLP, there is no requirement for ay specific citation format. I agree the way the references are presented in this article is confusing and ought to be fixed--the references at the bottom are most of them not at all to the point in any case--but I dod not see this as a reason for declining the article.

I am concerned not about hte article per se, but in our giving correct advice to beginners. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite the old decline you dredged up there, seeing that the time stamp for it is roughly 3 months in the past. Roughly 3 months ago the AFC Helper script still contained a default decline reason for article's that didn't have any inline citations (Using that one automatically placed the quited template and edit summary). Between 3 months ago and now that reason was removed from the helper script for exactly the same reason as you state above - it isn't exactly a valid reason to decline a page in the first place.

Right now there shouldn't be any new AFC article's that have this decline reason unless someone manually places it or uses a very old script version, though you may still find it on some of the older pages. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That explains it. I will be making some suggestions about revising the reasons further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian genocide

The undeletion requester has had time to improve it, but in my view it is no better, and I plan to nominate it at AfD. My first thought was to explain the tangled history and link to your reasons for undeleting; but I do not think all that is really relevant, and I am anyway struggling to make my nomination not TL;DR, so (unless you disagree) I propose simply to say that the article has a complicated history including previous deletions, but it is not a G4 speedy candidate and the present version should be considered on its merits.

I find that, ironically, the first use of the word genocide in this context was about the other side, by Lt-Col. Bastien-Thiry at his trial for attempted assassination of de Gaulle, referring to the abandonment to FLN vengeance of the harkis, Algerians who had supported France.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what you propose sounds right to me. It would be better to start the discussion afresh, as an AfD not a del rev. I agree it is improved; I am not certain whether it has been improved sufficiently, and will need to think about what I shall say at the AfD. The question of what allegations amount to genocide is an exceptionally charged one, to some extent for reasons connected with with prior uses of the term, and I think the use of the word in contemporary political discourse has gotten very far from its originally intended meaning. The extent to which we should use that word in article titles is not at all clear-cut. My own bias is to keep it rather narrowly restricted, but then this leads to evasions such as titles such as Accusations of... or Controversies about.., DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Origins of the Christ Myth - From Bruno Bauer to Arthur Drews

As per our conversation, I am not experienced enough for this one. Is this original research? the author states it is his thesis. What are the guidelines for this? I don't want to mark it ORIGINAL RESEARCH or WP:NOT until I am clear on how to handle. Please advise. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 02:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

. I saw it yesterday, and I too have been trying to figure out what to do with it. It's a university essay, but might have potential as an article or articles, though not in its current form or under its current title. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Arthur Drews, and have also been trying to work out what to do, or who to ask. 2 month, 1000 edits, 200k of words... the author clearly has energy and passion... if it were written with NPOV then we'd deluge him/her in barnstars... but it appears not, and hence so complicated... >.< -- Quiddity (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is a violation of NPOV (it presents other people's POV on the Christ myth theory, not th article author's view--do not confuse it with the rather absurd discussion here on the article about that theory), but rather OR--extensive analysis of the sources and drawing conclusions considerably beyond what we usually do. See also Bruno Bauer, shorter but with similar references, and the German WP article from which it seems to have been carefully translated or perhaps written in parallel. i had not spotted the bio--the partial duplication is an anticipation of what I would have suggested--splitting it into articles on the key people, and perhaps one on the key book also. Since I have some interest in the subject, I'll discuss it with him. I agree he could be an extremely valuable contributor. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No (word)

I'm looking at this old diff of No (word), and wondering if its worth trying to rescue (particularly sections 2/3/4), and how to best do so. (It was turned into a redirect to Yes and no in 2011). Thoughts? -- Quiddity (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has potential. Needs other examples, and probably removing the overlap with Just say No, and a section on No! as an expression of surprise; look also at No (symbol), which could use expansion for a wider range of cultural references as well. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chunk! No, Captain Chunk!

Hello, the page title Chunk! No, Captain Chunk! is under some sort of protection which I cannot include the work I have done to it. I was wondering If you could help me in removing the protection so I can add my sandbox work to the article? Thank you in advance. Jonjonjohny (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The latest version was a pure advertisement and useless. The previous one was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chunk! No, Captain Chunk. I am not knowledgeable enough in the subject to tell if your version has sufficiently good referencing to meet the objections--I am unable to judge the reliability of most of your sources. The admin who closed the AfD deletion was Wifione--you should first ask him on his talk page. If he declines to do it, and you wish to ask for a community decision, the proper course is to ask at WP:Deletion Review. When I see it there, I will undelete the version deleted at AfD for comparison. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You rock

You rock, period.... Long story short, I forgot my glasses at home today and read some things on my talk page wrong. I am embarrassed, but luckily, you hadn't read my heartless, disturbing comment yet. I appreciate you and I will not forget my glasses again. Besides mis-reading, I have an awful headache. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 20:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to check my Wikipedia mail. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 01:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shows up in your regular email, at whatever email address you specified in user preferences. But since you answered me, I see you did figure it out. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issue with author

What's good, Papa Dave!

In reviewing articles today, I declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Brandon Welch based on lack of references. I added help to the page, etc. Please see his comment on my talk page and my response. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 21:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went directly to the heart of the matter: the article was hopelessly promotional. The promotionalism was basically unfixable, even if the person were notable. I deleted it accordingly and gave the editor, a declared publicity agent, a level 4 warning. . Some admins might have simply blocked him, but I try to avoid it unless it becomes clear that it's necess

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad Iqbal

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muhammad Iqbal. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

commented. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturalistic pantheism nominated for deletion

Hi, given your previous input in a dispute resolution about pantheism, I'd like your input in my nominating Naturalistic pantheism for deletion if you have time for it. Thanks (Allisgod (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)) ary. If he continues along this line, it will be, so let me know. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation: Biomatrica

Hi DGG: Thanks very much for your feedback and encouraging comments on my AfC. Based on your suggestions, I have extensively edited the article. The main things I kept in mind while editing were to maintain a neutral tone and provide information for the general reader, and not press release type information. I did leave the main interview with the company founder because it is the only source I could find for the cited paragraph, and the interview was conducted with a highly respected business journalist (George Chamberlain). I am looking forward to any further suggestions you might have, and I hope for your approval of my article. Cheers! MO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Oberlin (talk • contribs) 09:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if anything , you went too far in eliminating mention of the actual products. Add a paragraph. It is also appropriate and necessary to give some idea of what the product actually consists of. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- it looks like for Biomatrica the article is still listed as being under review. So -- I made a user space version and added a section on products.

It looks like the way the company set the website up -- they have organized it in two ways:

By nucleic acid, or biological sample, DNA, RNA, bacteria, etc.

By purpose -- long term stabiliziation, pre-analytics, assay enhancers, etc.

So I included references to both parts in the section I wrote.

It looks like Mark Oberlin added a copy of the existing text with additional edits and additions in the AfC version. No need to do that. Edits can just be made directly to the existing text.

Mark may be able to add some more content which talks about what the various products DNAstable, RNAstable, DNAgard, RNAgard, etc. are made of -- and some content from the text that was added can be integrated into a version suitable for acceptance (for example there is content there about Biomatrica's work with In-Q-Tel). Either the user space or the AfC version can be worked from. It is possible for either one to eventually be moved into the main encyclopedia.

If one works from the AfC version then the history can be maintained.... Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a biologist, but I happened to see the article submission at Template:AFC statistics

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, Somehow the AfC version of my article was rearranged and semi-duplicated, i.e., messed up! I think that's why you thought the product section was lacking. I have now fixed the article to how it was when I last submitted it on 20 August 2012. There is substantial information about the products, what they are used for, that they are liquid or dry polymers. The specific type of chemicals is not released by the company - I assume it is proprietary information.

Regarding Jjjjjjjjjj's comments; I know the company's website organizes their product line by target market, i.e., pre-analytical, research, forensics, biobanks, and by general product category, i.e., DNA products, RNA products, bacterial products, assay products, etc. However, I think that this is just SEO marketing to capture customers searching by the two different types of categorization. I do not think it is essential to present the company's products both ways in the article.

Please let me know if there are any additional changes necessary to move this article towards acceptance.

Kind regards,

Mark Oberlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Oberlin (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG,

Following up on my last message of 8/22/2012, I was wondering if you’ve had a chance to look at my article on Biomatrica again after I cleaned it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Biomatrica)? As I noted, the article had somehow gotten rearranged, and I had to rewrite it back to how it was when I last submitted it on 20 August 2012. I believe that the article is now properly formatted and that it addresses your most recent suggestion to include more information about the company’s products.

Having familiarized myself with many Wikipedia articles on companies, I really think that the article is ready. Not to be presumptuous; I respect that you are the editor. I just want to do my best to get the article correct so that it can be approved as soon as possible.

Thank you very much,

Mark Oberlin Mark Oberlin (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need a second opinion

Hey, I have a question for you. I've been working on the article for Victoria Foyt after having seen the whole "Save the Pearls" debacle. I figured that if anyone was going to add this stuff, I probably should. I've been debating for a while about spinning the criticism section into a separate article, as there are a lot of sources out there about it. I'm just not entirely sure if I should or not. I could keep the article as it is on the author's page, but I think there's enough to justify a separate article. The controversy is a little 50/50, some complaining about the author but really only in relation to the book. I know that if I do create the article, it will be a magnet for people looking to score a few hits against the author via an article about her book as they did with the Foyt article. After the news got out about the book there were a few PRODs for Foyt's article that had no merit. So I'm a bit torn. I've made a quick and dirty version of the article, so if you want to look at it and see if there's enough there to justify an article, let me know. There's still a few reviews and stuff I have to put on here that I couldn't put onto the other article for reasons due to room. (User:Tokyogirl79/Save the Pearls: Revealing Eden) If not, I won't be terribly upset. I just think that it might be getting to the point where there's enough to spin off onto another article and make the section about the controversy in the author's article smaller since we'd have a separate article for the book. Tokyogirl 10:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You have two good choices: either (1) give only a one or two sentence description of each of the books in the main article mentioning the controversy, and put all the details for STP including the controversy in the main article for the book, and when the series appears, rewrite that article on the book to be about the series, or (2) combine everything into one article. and, once the second book in the series appears, move the material on the first book into an article on the series. A single article on the author is not too large to include the necessary content--the question is rather of proportion. The advantage of making a separate article on the book is pre-empting someone less skilled doing it. I think you saw that yourself. When there are many similar comments, you do not have to put them all in the text--just quote the most important, and give references to all., e.g. "There were similar comments from other critics" -- and then the ref links. That way they can all be found, and the text remains more readable. The controversy is about the book, unless it also criticizes other works of hers. (It seems clear what happened: she though she was being subtle, but was too heavy-handed about it, and was widely misread--and the names were very unfortunate. She needed a better editor or agent.). btw, have your read the book?--I have always been reluctant to work on articles on works I have not seen, beyond the utterly obvious, or a quick rescue.

Incidentally, we don't usually include magazine articles in a bibliography unless the author is famous. Nor in the lede, unless they're very important: I've moved it to the main text. If they were to be in a bibliography, they would need to be specified exactly. And try to cite reviews of the films from something more impt than local journals if at all possible. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have, actually. It's sort of an interesting read if you look at it from an experimental view point. It's not as awful as some make it out to be but it's still fairly bad as far as plot and such goes. Your opinion of the book is fairly accurate. A lot of reviews have been calling her naive over racial/social issues, so I think that played a part as well in how she depicted a lot of things. That's part of the reason I've been so careful to put her rebuttals in the page and to be neutral in how I wrote the plot. I think I'll incubate the book article in my userspace for the time being and see if anything else comes out about the book or if she does go through with any sequels. Right now I think that it's just easier and a little safer to have everything in the author's page for right now, plus I want to ensure that I get the page just right before launching it. As evidenced by the whole Emily Giffin thing, people tend to like to vandalize or add things that really don't belong on Wikipedia. I might put a separate page in a month or two, but the more I think about it the more I think that right now it'd be best to lie low for a while until the general public outcry against the book dies down. I've created redirects to the author's page that I've been watching, so hopefully nobody will create the book article any time soon. If they do, I'll put in what I've done but right now I think I'll sit on this for a while.

Thanks for the input about the sources! I'm still getting used to sifting through RS for the most part. I'm a lot better than I originally was when discerning sources but I'm still learning what is bonafide (a lengthy review in a big magazine), what's not (a blog review), and what falls in the middle (local reviews).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Samuel Berman

Would you have a look at this autobiography? At first look it reads like another self-promoting "I've outdone Einstein" nutcase with a new book to plug, and the "Fame and Personal relationships" section reads very oddly, with his colleagues signing statements that he has made "no single point of misconduct" and should have a Nobel prize. He seems to have his own Institute rather than a University position. On the other hand, he has a real publication record. (I am not sure I understand h-index - I am I right to make this one 11?) JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

notability would require a AfD. This is not my academic subject field, but the publication record is consistent with the university position. h factor is not conclusive. Some areas of mathematics and mathematical physics have I believe very low citation rates, and rates such as this are very common for Latin American scientists, who are under-represented in citation indexes. I would also want to consider the quality of the journals, most of which are slightly under first rate, and possibly what the citing authors have said about them--but that's for a subject expert. (The nature of the publisher of his books is also relevant--Nova is quite variable) I'm going to leave it alone at this point. If it goes for AfD , the physics people here will give their opinion. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policy on Books and Authors

In regards to the David R. Hawkins article, one editor, (who originally requested deletion) has taken it upon himself to remove the published works from the author based on what appears to be an misinterpretation of policy regarding authors who are both independently published and who also publish works through their own publishing company. Is there some way to get a consensus and clarification on this policy or someone who might have a third-party input on the policy as it is being used to delete the author's works? Discussion is also on the article talk as to why he claims to be doing so. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published books have been included in bibliographies for some literary authors who have self-published some of their works. They can be listed here if sufficiently significant, possibly in a separate section--just as I would always separate peer-reviewed articles from non peer-reviewed publications for academics.
This is too important a change in an article to make during a deletion discussion. I shall probably revert it. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in where I don't belong here. On the deletion review page, you made a good point regarding notability of well-known fringe theories. I added a couple of comments regarding specific application of that idea, and I think you, who are probably more involved in policies and guidelines than I am, would be a very good person to respond. Also, in addition to the specific indicated there, I remember a almost completely rejected Seventh-day Adventist archaeologist whose name I've forgotten who found, among other things, clear evidence in his travels in Israel that the Ark of the Covenant is buried under the Temple Mount, by, if I remember rightly, Mossad and the CIA. So far as I remember, some months or years ago, when this idea came up here, all I could find was independent reliably sourced coverage that said little more than "he's said this, but he's actually never been in Israel that anyone can prove and his opinion has never been given any weight by anyone who knows the subject" variety in a few media outlets. I obviously can't remember his name, unfortunately, but that is another specific case of a similar type which might arise again. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

everyone with a good idea belongs here. Your comparison is illuminating--that would be a case where no serious attention has been paid (NOT TABLOID applies in this field also) ; this is one where some respectable attention has been paid. The reason for doubt here , is that it's a case where not a great deal of serious attention has been paid & is therefore subject to reasonable debate. Unfortunately, most of the debate has not been all the reasonable. My own view is that debates when they get that way are contaminated, and should be closed and restarted in the hope of more appropriate focus, but that is not the general practice here except in more extreme cases than this. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, DGG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Isaac

Hey, Dave... I reside in the projected path of Isaac so I evacuated Monday afternoon... if you don't mind, please check my page for new messages every few days or so until you see the UPDATE removed from the top of my page. It would be greatly appreciated. Obviously I won't see your response or be able to respond, but hopefully you or someone else in AFC will see this message and help me out.Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE _GROOVES 07:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will follow up your AfC issues--and anything else that may arise. I wish you the best of luck in this situation. It somehow seems unfair that something like this should repeat this soon, but this is not an aspect of the universe where fairness or even human concerns are relevant. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

microbe-binding wounddressing

Submission declined on 19 August 2012 by DGG (talk). This remains an advertisement, even if the product being advertised is disguised until the end of the article. Declined by DGG 9 days ago. Last edited by DGG 9 days ago. Reviewer: Inform author.

Dear sir,

how should i change this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wunden de (talk • contribs) 17:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

let someone write it who does not have any involvement with the company. That's the basic principle of WP:COI policy. Now, I admit I do not know if you have such actual COI, but the way the company is referred to indicates that you are apparently editing in its interest. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page - Shades of Hope Treatment Center

Hi David - I'm helping clean up the online presence of Shades of Hope Treatment Center and see that there was once a page for them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_Hope_Treatment_Center. You deleted the page in August 2011 because it was too commercial. I'd like to reactivate their presence here, in a non-advertising manner of course. (I don't know what their previous page looked like or who created it.)

Shades of Hope has a legitimate reason to be on Wikipedia. They've been the setting for numerous TV shows, including "Addicted to Food" on the Oprah Winfrey Network and "Ruby" on the Style Network. It's also linked to on Ashley Judd's wiki page under Personal as the location where she sought treatment, as well as the Oprah Winfrey Network's. Here's a link to a search for "Shades of Hope": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=%22shades+of+hope%22&fulltext=Search

Please let me know what I need to do to convince you to allow the page to exist and to allow me to edit it to meet Wikipedia standards.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooperkoch (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me you have to convince. but the community. Anyone can list an article for deletion; if it obviously meets the criteria for speedy deletion at WP:CSD, the first admin who sees it will delete it; if it's less obvious, it goes for a community decision. From what you say, you are working for the Center, and if by "trying to clean up its online presence" you mean "increase its on-line presence," you are a purely promotional editor, and can be blocked as such, for Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and cannot be used for promotion. Please see WP:COI: our basic advice is that if the center is important, someone unconnected with it will write the article.

But nobody can write an article that will remain in Wikipedia if there are no 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. Looking at Google News I see none; looking at Google I see nothing useful--the best is a CNN interview not primarily about the center. Consensus here at many previous discussions is that being a guest on even a famous talk show is not itself intrinsically notable, nor is having a famous client. It is only notable if multiple other sources cover it. The Oprah Show was over a year ago, and nobody seems to have done so. Similarly for Judd's stay there. My advice on the basis of long experience here is that without much better references, the most objective and best-written article possible on the Center is still not be likely to be accepted by the community. Not everything worth mentioning in a WP article about something notable is itself notable--the criterion for content is merely being relevant and sourced.

If you do have references, please tell me--the best way is to list them on your talk p. and ask me here to have a look.

I see you have also started an article at Articles for Creation on its founder, Tennie McCarty; it is not likely that she is notable for the center if the center is not notable; nor will be notable as an author under WP:CREATIVE for the book she wrote about the center. The article's only purpose can have been promotion, so I have accordingly deleted it as well. I need to warn you that entirely promotional editors will be blocked if they continue, but you are very welcome here to write about anything else you may be interested in. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins

In the Deletion Review of David R. Hawkins There seems to be some contention over which arguments you felt were prejudiced. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get the talk page up as well for this article, as a well or should that be requested else where? --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

done. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't able to look back at what happened back before AfD, I only caught it by happen chance the day before it was closing and didn't have time to review. But since you have chimed in on the article I will say this: What you actually have here is a case of "power-tripping" by admin JohnCarter and I don't say that lightly. I had never encountered him before this AfD and since then he has pursued this article, this author on German language project, threatened sanctions against me for contesting him on the issue and made numerous accusations about my honesty, integrity (and flat out called me a liar, with no cause) suggesting that I might possibly re-create this article under another name as well; consequently he has followed and pursued my past edits and sent another article to AfD, essentially out of spite over this issue, and this has all been in the last week. His behavior is not uncommon but it is still unbecoming of an administrator here. These are just heavy-handed tactics and bullying to get his point across. So his long discourses in that DRV are his way of "getting his way" so to speak. The other "endorsers" seem to associate with him regularly. As I have stated, I do not wish to have the article userfied, nor will I personally contribute to the article other than provide the information I have collected thus far in my files. I actually don't care for the author personally but from what I can see, just because he has very "fringe" qualities does not disqualify the rest of his notability, his more mainstream notoriety nor entirely all of the sources that deal in spiritual matters.--Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual for me and I hope other admins to look at other article by someone I encounter. Sometimes the results are reassuring, sometimes not. People here tend to be very impatient; The long arguments you have been giving are not as helpful as short compact statements would be.

I do see that you and he have gotten into a unfruitful conflict with each other. I suggest what I always do in such cases, that you avoid him and his articles in the future. I am about to say the same to him. It has nothing to do with the merits of the situation. We're trying to get on with the work of building an encyclopedia,not achieving justice. Inevitably in our system some notable subjects will be rejected, some non-notable ones included. The way to avoid being frustrated with that is to work on a variety of topics. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly abridged comment of mine at the Hawkins AfD, explaining some general matters of sourcing and notability

There is a problem with articles where all the sources available are those in support of some weird idea, because nobody sensible would conceivably bothered to take it seriously. (this frequently is the situation for articles on paranormal phenomena) But we have no authority to decide on the weirdness of an idea. We can say something is self published, or published by a fringe press. We can add that it is held in very few libraries. But we can not judge on what is fringe and not fringe based on our own intellectual understanding unless there is a RS saying so. We cannot be concerned that, giving whatever factual information there may be, would mislead the reader & we therefore shouldn't publish it. We tend to solve the problem by using biased language and loaded words, but NPOV means Neutral wording. Anything else is an expression of our own OR and our own bias, however correct they may be.

And I accept there is a serious and general problem about local coverage of local authors, and PR-infuenced interviews. We're getting a lot of this, in all subjects. It has no particular relationship to pseudoscience or kookiness--it is even more frequent for poets and novelists and musicians. And businessmen and lawyers and doctors. And student athletes and performers, and town politicians. And not just people: restaurants, real estate brokerages, insurance agencies, merchandisers of all types of products and services. We try to deal with the problem with WP:LOCAL and NOT MEMORIAL. I have consistently argued and will continue to argue that local book reviews of a local author are meaningly indiscriminate, and routine interviews even in national media are essentially PR, with anything the interviewee says being just his autobio and any tributes or complements the interviewer pays him just conventional polite conversation to get him talking. This is one of the reasons I thing the N=2RS rule, the GNG, should be depreciated, and notability of a person or firm judged by whether they have done something important. The assumption that only notable people will get press coverage is amusingly naïve--I find it hard to believe that even 8 or 10 years ago we were quite that unsophisticated. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Townsin and other authors

DGG, I've been away a while. Is being a published author no longer an assertion of significance? Please see This conversation where I'm making an idiot of myself. Has the divide between significance and notability closed so much? Is there some discussions I need to read? Thanks Dloh cierekim 01:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are correct--as long as it's not self published. Details on Dori's talk p. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thans. You are awesome s always. Dloh cierekim 01:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motor Club of America

Heya. Saw this when doing some research, seems that this article was speedied yesterday in light of G11. I'm doing some research, however, and wanted to see what that article had to say. Could we pull a userfy out of the hat for this one?

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatraz

Check out my new template and Alcatraz building articles in Template:Alcatraz Island. This is the sort of coverage in my opinion which makes wikipedia that bit more special and illustrates just how much we could potentially cover. I wish I'd been able to access info and know what the buildings were when I visited it 10-15 years ago and viewed it by boat. If I was there today I could check it out on my mobile. I think people will find the information I've put out today really useful. What do you think of the idea? The Prison life on Alcatraz one I think I'll enjoy the most, an elaboration on the paragraph I added to the Alcatraz Island article. Its quite interesting to me to get an insight into life on the island.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]