User talk:DGG/Archive 6 July 2007

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

Contents

Congratulations[edit]

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

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

Notability of scientists vs their science[edit]

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

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

i'd appreciate your opinion on something[edit]

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

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

What's your view?[edit]

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

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


Yes please about citation count[edit]

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

AfDs/blogs[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Kay Körner[edit]

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

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

Gordon MacPherson[edit]

Not sure how you did your article search, but I got >120 peer-reviewed articles. Which still doesn't make him notable. What is needed is an independant secondary source specifically referring to 'Gordon MacPherson's important scientific contribution to x'. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 03:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of people by that name, even in medicine. I was being very conservative--clearly over-conservative. I re-did it in Scopus to get a citation count, and found 58 peer-reviewed papers. I agree that I would in general not automatically consider an associate professor notable (that's the equiv. rank), but to my surprise, I found 427, 279, 250, 176, 146 citations for the five top papers. I think it covers the notability question. (I haven't put it all in the article quite yet. I find it much easier to cut spam down to size than to build up these over-modest articles.) Fiction writers get shown notable by reviews, athletes by competitions, scientists by citations. I can expand on this. DGG 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not the point. I strongly suspect that he is notable, but that is not the same thing as 1) knowing what he is notable for, 2) having an independant reference that establishes his notability, and c) having content in the article that discusses the thing he is notable for. Deleting an article doesn't prevent anyone from writing an article about that same subject in the future, it simply says that there's nothing in the current article that justifies having it. -RustavoTalk/Contribs 05:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I recognize you know the academic world, probably very well, so I don't have to explain why people there are important to start with (smile) (The next paragraph is what I have evolved as my standard reply-- it's addressed to people who do not know how scientists work, and I do not mean to sound as if you didn't know about this stuff--but it is better worded than what I can do on the spot)
  • "We don't judge the work, even in subjects where some of us could, because this is an egalitarian place--we just show how other people have judged it. Notability for academics is typically established by their publications. People become professors by writing notable research papers. That the papers are notable is established by their being published in peer-reviewed journals. The review by two or more specialists in such peer review establishes those papers as evidence of N. For appointment, for promotion to associate professor of senior lecturer, they pass stringent reviews by peers, including particularly peers from other institutions.

this establishes notability much more strictly and reliably than we could here. The profession establishes notability; WP just records the fact.

In general, nobody writes magazine articles on professors, and they dont get a biography until they retire or die. Therefore, since notability in each field is judged by the standard of the field, and notability in this field is established by publications and positions, their publications and positions are always considered suffficient, as is explained more fully in WP:PROF., and consistently maintained at AfD."
"The standard there is more notable than the average." To be noticed by 400 peers is much more important that to be noticed by two book reviewers. To be noticed by more than 200 peers for several different publications is more notable than by being noticed by two book reviewers for several different novels.
Answers to specific objections: What he is notable for, is the subject of the papers. The abstracts are on PubMed for a description. There is no need to discuss the plot of a prize-winning movie to show it's notable. The recognition is sufficient. WP articles have to show their subjects are notable, by the standards of the field. They do not have to explain why the field holds them as notable; its best to get in some sort of orientation, but not essential.
The independent references are the papers themselves, and the are reliable because they have been published in peer-reviewed reliable journals. (in this case, of the very highest quality, and that can be shown too from Science Citation Reports). As a compromise rule of thumb, it seems to have been accepted that Full professors at research university are almost always notable, assistant professors rarely, associate, it depends. In this case, that many citation and papers would be enough even for an assistant professor, not that I can recall an assistant professor article here where he had such a strong record.
There is never much need to re-create an article about a scientist, since by the time enough people show up, it has become clear whether or not it's notable. If I can't get it rewritten or explained in 5 days I go on to the next. I do not defend the non-notable ones. (I do have a list of a few slip-ups when nobody noticed; when people write inadequate article that happens.) The article as it stands is sufficient, and these standards have been shown in multiple prior AfDs --I am not being idiosyncratic (actually, I should probably go back myself and make a list of informal precedents--there are no formal precedents here). DGG 06:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Helpful script[edit]

David, I saw you doing some CSD work, so I thought I'd point out a helpful script I stumbled on today - WP:CSDAR.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith speedies[edit]

In response to the allegations that I was posting speed deletion tags out of revenge for having my article posted for such, I honestly wasn't. I read through the deletion policies thoroughly and read that we are encouraged to "Visit a Special:Randompage and jump into the rabbit hole!" to get involved with Wikipedia. So I did, and found articles that blatantly meet the speedy deletion criteria. It was nothing to do with revenge and I was only trying to get more involved in Wikipedia by bringing to attention some other pages - nothing to do with my own. I apologize if this was inappropriate but I do not believe I was doing it in bad-faith. --Davmid055 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your helpful tips. As I am new to wikipedia, and am just learning the ropes, it is inevitable that I would make some ediquette mistakes. I apologzie for this. But I will do my best to appropriately analyze articles now. As far as the article I wrote, it is mine and I do grant Wikipedia license to it. A few of the factual elements I gleaned from the pages provided in the links section, but I in no way plagiarised any of it. Most of it is written out of my own experience, since I own a five year old Kyi-Leo myself. So I hope other Kyi-Leo owners will later contribute to it. --Davmid055 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC) (has been discussed on his page--warning will be removed i a few days)DGG 00:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Trusilver[edit]

I saw your comment at Trusilver's talk page. I have always been under the impression that just because there is no "set" tag for an article to be speedily deleted, doesn't automatically exclude it from deletion. I mean, there isn't really one for films, not to mention there MUST be at least several dozen of the nearly 2 million articles we have that need to be deleted in a speedy fashion, but do not fit into any special category. I'm not trying to come across in a rude manner, but I do hope to find a common ground here with you. Jmlk17 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help...I'm still a pretty new admin, and am getting used to it all still. Jmlk17 08:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

re:ignoring the enemy[edit]

With the 'late at night' disclaimer, which article/discussion are we talking about?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: ok, I've figured that out :) Note that I use 'crank' only because I am citing a guideline using it, it's not a word I'd chose myself otherwise (per WP:CIV issues). That said, if a minor scholar's work is mostly ignored and only severly criticized in the only two academic reviews that look at it, I fail to see how it can be considered reliable enough to cite anywhere but in article about that minor scholar or his views. A good analogy is: if I get a PhD from history, go to work at some minor NGO or governmental outlet, publish a book at a minor/unknown publisher with some controversial claims not confirmed by any other source and get heavily criticized in two academic reviews by more reliable scholars: are you saying my work can still be cited on Wikipedia?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, it can, and if the topic is discussed it should. But the articles by other people attacking the work should also been cited , and the arguments of both sides briefly presented. Since your work-- as postulated-- will have been erratic and incompetent, the arguments against it will be very strong, and the arguments for it, no matter how well presented, weak. the readers will realize it & judge for themselves.
This is not my original idea; I follow in this very closely the classic liberalism of J. S. Mill. Intellectual honesty, whether in academic writing or in public discourse, requires all arguments to be presented as well as they can be; otherwise it counts as propaganda. In most academic writing or public advocacy, one of course then draws a conclusion about the relative strength of the argument. In writing for a newspaper or an encyclopedia, one does not draw an opinion, but simply presents both sides. The only place a newspaper can express its opinion is in its editorials, which are mere arguments and carry no authority as evidence for anything. There is no place where an encyclopedia can properly express an opinion, thought it can and should honestly quote the opinions of others--all others.
I understand the provision to omit totally weird positions to mean that if nobody has noticed the author's theory but the author, then it need not & should not be presented--the usual WP standard of notability. DGG 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts you might have on a somewhat similar situation at [1] would be most welcome. Novickas 16:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You have commented before on the presumption of standing that is conferred on those authors whose works are held by major academic libraries. Since the point of contention in the above case is Garšva's editorship of a controversial history book - held by such libraries - would you extend that presumption to include Garšva? Not as a sole source: as a legitimate POV among others. Novickas 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi[edit]

It appears we do work in much the same way. Now that I have followed the rabbe link to see it isn't just an alternative spelling of rabbi, I totally understand how there is a claim of notability that merits a chance to be developed. Erechtheus 00:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


WP:PROF[edit]

My apologies for this, I figured no-one but me would be interested in such a specific question. But now I have another question - was my use of the talk page for this question appropriate? I've asked questions like this before to mixed results and I'd be happy to know of a better venue if I'm using it incorrectly (i.e. talk pages should be for issues regarding the main page only). WLU 16:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

it's reasonable to use the talk pages to ask about interpreting the rule, and if has occurred over a particular article, it helps to say which. As a rough guide, any general question you have (or error you might make) will be asked or done again by someone else; & will generally have happened before, for this one, last time was a few weeks ago & it led to quite a fight at AfD, because somebody speedied the pages for most of the heads of Australian universities. So people do need reminding, and it's good for the people who discuss policy there to see what questions people have. Sometimes you can search to see if it has been answered before, but often it needs to be said again. If it is really specific to the unusual facts of an individual page, you can ask individually someone who you can see from the talk page or AfD is interested in the matter. Most have enough sense to tell you when they know their advice is not universally accepted.
Incidentally, many academic people or their students write drab articles, and don't always know what to emphasize. I've learned to never assume something unfamiliar is unimportant without at least a google search, & for academics, google scholar.
And participating in the discussions on policy pages (and AfD) is the way to learn the rules and the customs. I see you've been doing a great deal of good editing on contentious subjects--you will find it useful to know the arguments people use in policy discussions. The text of the rule isn't always as helpful. But I warn you that discussing policy is addictive. DGG 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything wiki is addictive :)

I tend to graze a lot, and for pages like the ones I just prodded, the prod is usually a prod to the author (ha!) to pay attention to the page and up it's notability. Better is to do so myself, but I'm lazy... Thanks for the reply, I'll take it as 'a reasonable question in the right place but it's been done before so next time look for it. And don't erase your question afterwards'. I figure if enough people keep asking the same questions then eventually the people who edit the pages themselves will eventually point to representative archives or modify the policy to be more clear. Thanks! WLU 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: speedies[edit]

Thank you for correcting my mistakes on the Mearns & Mearns Castle articles. I completely did not realise that this was the correct way to go about things. I can see you are a very experienced editor and I thank you for your help. I just have a question for you, I was wondering, what happens if no-one takes interest in such a non-notable article like the school, is there not a good chance it will get kept up then? Thank You --SteelersFan UK06 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Librarian stuff[edit]

Hi DGG, I recognize your username from around the wiki (recently at some Afds I'm watching). I see you're an admin and a librarian, and that you've contributed to similar discussions in the past, so I'd like to point out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Unusual university spam. I think it's about time we developed a clear policy about this sort of thing. As an established wikipedian and wannabe librarian, I've taken a great interest in this debate. Thanks for considering it! Latr, Katr 02:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your thoughtful reply. There seems to be a lot of hostility and misunderstanding around this issue, so I hope we can reach a satisfactory conclusion. If I go for my MLIS, I'll do the UW's distance-learning program, since I don't really want to move to Seattle. It sounds like a lot of fun, but I have to do my research and determine if the extra money I would be making would be worth the extra debt I'd be taking on! Latr, Katr 16:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There is a similar thread that I moved just below the one in which you responded that you might want to check out. I'm taking everything related to that off my watchlist, as I seem to have unknowingly created some hostility between myself and one of the editors involved. If you would, please keep me posted if any new policies or guidelines are developed out of this. Thanks! Latr, Katr 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

edit summaries[edit]

(comment from : User talk:Netkinetic Please be careful to maintain a neutral tone in edit summaries "sorry, John, you arent notable enough for wikipedia" -- even when people are not notable, that dismissive over-personal wording is not appropriate. And to actually use it as an edit summary on both the article and the talk p. of the editor, is, in my opinion, getting close to WP:BITE. (Anyway, that is not the standard for speedy--speedy is no assertion of notability. The statement that someone is a professor somewhere is a clear assertion. ) Before nominating people in unfmiliar fields for deleteion especially with speedy,it is considered to be a good idea to check at least google, and, for someone for whom it might be relevant, GoogleScholar. When I was new here, I sent some articles to AfD about people in sports I knew little about, and I learned a great deal from the reaction. Think for a minute whether a full professor at UC Santa Cruz who developed a notable theory is likely to non-notable. Your excellent vandal fightinng is muc appreciated by all us admins, but please don't make unnecessary work for us.

Actually it would be an even better idea of the editor himself added some more suitable content to his {{db-bio}} violating article. Self-promotion is not what Wikipedia is about and, as an administrator, I would think you would know this. The edit summary may have been a little bit over the top, but "over-personal"? Any objective editor coming across that article would surmise from the creation and verbage of that article that it was auto-biographical, even you admitted that in your response on both the registered and anon talk pages. Editors address each other by name frequently in edit summaries, and if they reveal their personal name, that is fair-game as well. Hopefully your break until July 4th will provide some sufficient time to allow for self-reflection on the principles and guidelines WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:POV before summarily dismissing an article deserving of speedy delete consideration. Regards and be well. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles#verifiable[edit]

A couple days ago you made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles#verifiable "There should be another project to examine the articles for which references can not be found", I suggested WP:AfD was that project. Now I have found Jian Yong and posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles#Challenging article to reference Take a look, is it a candidate to springboard a new not AfD project off of? Unless I missed something this one is looks like a notable historical person, with a fictional current character (minor?), and no reliable English language references. Jeepday (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy and PROF[edit]

You are quite correct that the edit summary bordered on WP:BITE. However, allowing an article to not be considered under speedy deletion when it violates WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR (shall I continue?) is mystifying. A professor at a university is non-notable in and of itself. Please respect the process and allow the community to decide. Regards. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
please read WP:SPEEDY, at this time, RS, V and NOR are none of them reasons for speedy. I did not make this policy, but of course as an admin I follow it. If you want to change the policy, WP:VP is the place. DGG 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:SPEEDY, criteria exists i.e. "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." Are you stating that the article in question was encylopedic. Because according to Wikipedia guidelines, which you are well aware (or should be), an article that violates WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS is not encylopedic. Unless we have different criteria in place for university professors, perhaps WP:UP? And even admin DGG states the following on an article s/he marked for speedy deletion: "some encyclopedic information and sources were needed". Glad we both agree after all. :)Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
we are in total agreement that many articles should be deleted, and I do my share. The article for that comment was about a product with 1 sentence saying where it is made and another saying where it was sold. Clear advertisement. The one prev. discussed gave a sober description of the career and the chief accomplishments, and just needed proper references and the addition of supporting content. Clear not A7 or G11, and unref is not a speedy. Unencyclopedic articles should be deleted, but not all of them through speedy. Nominating that page for PROD or Afd would have been totally appropriate--I generally nominate such pages for prod myself. . Please recheck WP:DELETE. And before citing rules, read them: WP:UP is not the p. about University Professors. WP:PROF is, and it was asserted that he developed a notable theory. But there is no point in arguing further here about single articles--there are too many articles waiting that need deletion.DGG 18:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: AFD[edit]

I'm sorry, but calling someone ridiculous is a personal attack and making reference to material not of any relevance to a debate only serves to corrupt the equity of the system. I am also curious as to where a "patently unsuitable" nomination is, if you can point one out and provide a relevant policy that it breaches then by all means go ahead. I am going to disregard your warning, quite simply you are not an admin and you haven't justified yourself in making up new policy Sploooshman 08:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, DGG is an admin, and a respected one at that. Secondly, would you be so kind as to provide diffs or even a link to the specific AfD that you have in mind? There are plenty of people who stop by from time to time and some of us would like to understand your claims. Antelan talk 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I looked at Spl-man's AfD nominations, but all seemed to be speedily closed (not by DGG) & I lost interest. See closer's comment. Johnbod 15:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Johnbod. Antelan talk 17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
and my thanks to both of youDGG 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Siggi's Skyr page[edit]

Dear DGG, I noticed that you marked our page for Speedy deletion and that it was subsequently removed. I did read your user page and am very impressed with the work you do for the Wikipedia community. However I must object to the deletion of our page. It had been pointed out to us at Siggi's Skyr that we had no mention on Wikipedia like most other yogurt brands. (Dannon, Yoplait, Brown Cow just to name a few) In similar manner we feel the Siggi's Skyr has a justified presence on Wikipedia. We are planning on reposting the page and would welcome any suggestions from you on how to make the page as neutral and encyclopedic as possible. Best regards, Sveinn Ingimundarson

replied that some encyclopedic information and sources were needed, and reminded about COI.DGG 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the headsup, however, I've deliberately decided to hold back my keep 'vote' for now to give andy a chance to convince me of his viewpoint. I'll make a further edit with Keep or Delete once he's had a fair crack at that. SP-KP 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that DreamGuy has been up to his old tricks at the Parapsychology article. He has been making untrue and uncivil attacks on the talk page, and edit warring- mostly about links.

Your talk page took me 3 min to load- it would be a lot of help if you could archive.

Cheers Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a bunch of diffs showing his edit warring: [2] [3] [4] [5] Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't care about the category myself at this point- I just don't like the edit warring, the attacks and the bad attitude. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I've been telling everyone else on the talk page- ignore him he's a troll. Doesn't stop me from trying to get administrative help though (he's also up for ArbCom, but it failed). I guess he'll be banned eventually. Thanks for your time (: Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

DDG, I wish you would recuse yourself from taking action against me, considering your history of foul ups where I am concerned, with your completely out of process block, the warning you gave which you didn't even follow, you undoing a block and not even getting that right, etc. Right now you are basically becoming the go-to guy for editors to file false complaints, knowing that you will hop in to oppose me regardless of the validity of the claims. Your edit comment on your revert at Parapsychology was simply false, and your comments with Martinphi here show extreme bias on your part. Martinphi and a gaggle of other editors are involved in a major batch of coordinated POV-pushing to try to ignore longstanding WP:NPOV policy. In fact they are currently in an active arbitration case about it. Joining in with them is really poor form. Above you said that if you did anything with Wikifur it would be not as an admin, yet here you are pretending to be an unbiased and responsible admin. Very poor form. And if (hopefully when) Martinphi and others get blocked for POV pushing, you'll just look that much more out of step with Wikipedia policy, if your actions on Wikifur weren't already bad enough. DreamGuy 05:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course he thinks you're biased- what would you expect? But I'll just go to 3RR.... not that I expect to be able to. Re the ArbCom, I did a couple of bad and a couple of iffy things as shown by my block log, but the ArbCom essentially instituted my understanding of NPOV on the paranormal articles. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Larry M Hyman[edit]

Thank you for expanding the article. It looks great! But in the future, either leave the uncategorised tag there or if you are going to remove it, please categorise it yourself. Thanks.

Will Hauser[edit]

Thanks for the heads up! I have recently changed the references. Check it out for me!!! But, the link about his old band is all the confirmation i could get (so its still a link to the myspace page). is that okay?

Thanks Again!!
Crazilazigurl07 talk 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So, I looked over the Hauser page. Thanks for helping with that!!! And for the Street To Nowhere page. I didnot really do that one! Someone else started the page, and I just updated a few things. But, I will do my best to get the page in order. Again, thanks for all your editing and constructive criticism. You're the first person to actually talk to me before just deleting or erasing all my hard work!! Thanks!!
Crazilazigurl07 talk 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

deletion on Downtown Berkeley, Berkeley, California[edit]

I want to delete the page because Downtown Berkeley, Berkeley, California and Downtown Berkeley, California have the same content. Chris! my talk 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am trying to move Downtown Berkeley, California to Downtown Berkeley, Berkeley, California. But I somehow mess it up and create two identical pages. Could you help me on that? Chris! my talk 21:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

But Downtown Berkeley, California makes it sounds like a city, while it is really just a neighborhood within Berkeley. Look at Cragmont, Berkeley, California for example. I agree that the name I suggest is too long, so what do you suggest. Chris! my talk 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have another name for it. How about we just call it "Downtown Berkeley" without the word California in it. Chris! my talk 21:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool. Thanks. Chris! my talk 21:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wish I can change all the links with one click. Chris! my talk 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Shelly[edit]

Hello DGG, sorry for the stub on Shelly but I was planning to research more about this a little obscure (at least to me) philosopher after some organization I have been doing on philosophers' infoboxes (he is mentioned as a "major influence" of Habermas). However, I now recognize that I should have researched more or just discussed about Habermas' infobox... At least I have learned another lesson on how to act on Wikipedia. Sorry once more. :) (PS: you wrote in my "main" page, I will move it to the talk page) tresoldi 01:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I had never heard about WorldCat, thank you very much for the suggestion! Best wishes for your work in Wikipedia. tresoldi 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

John Żammit[edit]

Are you certain all is well with John Żammit. Article seems to be written by the person himself which might be conflict of interest, but I'm not sure. -WarthogDemon 02:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the least sure how notable he is, but it isnt a speedy for obvious lack of notability--From Google, he seems to be a local big shot in Malta. This isn't going to be easy to source--what I've just done is put a prod on to give time. It would help if you'd keep track--if someone removes the prod without improving it, p[lease send to AfD. Agreed, its COI, but that is not a reason for speedy. if someone with COI writes a really spammy article, then speedy for G11 spam is often applicable. If they're lazy, then copyvio is worth a look. But this is a sober article of dubious notability. Not everyone agrees with me, but I think speedy is only fair when it is unquestionably non-notable or altogether impossible on other grounds. I apologize for not putting on a prod immediately, but there's a large speedy backlog tonight and not enough admins seem to be around, & I want to help clear out the real trash before the holiday. DGG 02:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Consider it done. Watching it. Main reason I put up the bio tag was because I thought it was a vanity page - had I thought there was possible notability I'd have prodded it like you have. I'll keep an eye on it now. -WarthogDemon 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you tagged Girija maa's Wikipedia page. it is not advertising...

Look at some one like Mata Amritanandamayi very similar persons and writings on descriptions

please let me know how to make the page work better so it is not deleted!!!

User talk:PoliceChief[edit]

Hi, as a disinterested admin I should welcome your review of the discussion at User talk:PoliceChief which seems to contain some veiled threats. I am at a loss to see what the beef is (apart from his unhappiness at my unblanking the talk page, a secondary issue) and it would be helpful if you were to add an objective view to the page. TerriersFan 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I interpret the last message as an indication of peaceful closure & I think it better to leave well enough alone. No one seeing this whole thing will think the worse of you. Saying one will try to have an admin removed shouldn't be construed as a threat-there are at least 2 such comments on my talk page & I haven't seen the need to remove them. There's probably an irrelevant personal issue, the traditional bad night's sleep--nothing the least unreasonable or contentious in any prev. edit. by either.

The Namaste Guild - prod contested, AfD started[edit]

Greetings! I noticed that you proposed The Namaste Guild for deletion. I wanted to let you know that the prod was contested, and the article is now in AfD discussion here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction of fact re. Ronald J. Clarke[edit]

I noted that you made changes to the Clarke page concerning discoveries and just wanted to correct some points of fact. Ron didn't discover Sk 847 - it was discovered long before he became invovled in palaeoanthropology - (around 1949 or so). the confusion arises as a result of his having worked on the skull for his thesis in the middle eighties. Secondly, he wasn't invovled in the discovery of the Olduvai habilis - he was invited at a later date to reconstruct part of the crushed cranium for publication.

Regards

Profberger 05:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD criteria on PTDA[edit]

Hi, Do you think that an association would count as a group, rather than a company, for the purposes of speedy deletion? It's an interesting point I've never really though about. Seeing as I nominate lots of articles for speedy deletion I though an opinion might be useful. Cheers Kevin 05:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Fore and Aft" Regiment[edit]

I understand that you are an inclusionist (I'm just moderate), and I won't complain about you turning down my db-a7, so I made an AfD for it. I don't know if this is taboo, but I hope you will side with me in realizing that this page is pure nonsense and in inappropriate for Wikipedia. That's all. Happy adminning! :D Tdmg 08:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion vs Inclusion[edit]

Surprising, isn't it? You're a fervent inclusionist and I'm a rabid deletionist, and yet we almost always act in the same direction. I suppose your yin balances my yan and we end up somewhere in a fairly reasonable middle.

It still makes you think-- if we end up agreeing so often despite our fundamentally different approaches it probably means Sturgeon's Law is on the nose as always.  :-) — Coren (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, on a semi-related note, I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twyana Davis last night since you speedied it. I'm no expert, can you confirm I did it right? — Coren (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, personally, I'd be in favor of a policy that said that admins should not speedy article unless tagged by someone else. Checks and balances and all that. With reasonable exceptions, perhaps, for G10 and G12 since the very existence of those articles is damaging. — Coren (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


Question[edit]

You recently send me a message regarding a page I put up. Could you e-mail me directly? porterjl@indiana.edu The page was put up for a department of which I am in charge of the Web site content, so yes, some materials were taken from our site. If need be I can rephrase things. But again, it's a site that I maintain. I am not well versed in Wikipedia and want to know what I should do. I'm currently in the process of searching to see which of our faculty have pages, at which point I'll add those links. The edits you've made are fine.

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

Hey, look! I've been (mildly) bold and went ahead and suggested the change. — Coren (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Patricia Taylor Comments[edit]

Hi DGG, I am delicasso, and wanted to respond to your feedback on this entry. I added two book reference and her PhD footnote, and some link to (some of) what she is currently doing. I was originally modelling this after the Margot Anand entry. However, I have added a bit more content and footnoting. Let me know what else, if anything, you'd like to see. Thanks, Delicasso (David)

The overdue question :)[edit]

Sorry was a bit busy. My question is, how seriously can we include a source that seriously challenges a commonly held view without an explanation. For lack of better example at the moment: Let's say I challenge the view that the earth is round and I provide a citation. But it fails to explain itself and leaves a lot to be answered. Let's say I cite source saying earth could have been flat but most likely it was round. Can I discard such a source that says in a wiki article Earth was flat or round as original research?Hetoum I 20:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the degree to which the view is universally held, and the authority of the source. If the president of the Royal Geographical Society says the earth is flat after all, it can be used in an article about the earth. If there is no explanation, it can still be treated as an opinion. If George W. Bush says the earth is flat, it can be used in an article about him. What's the actual instance? DGG 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The following quote was referred to in an Article: Movses, native of the village of Kalankatuyk in Utik, was either Uti (Albanian) who wrote in Armenian, or Armenian, which is very likely, because during at that time Artsakh and greater part of Utik were Armenianised.

So, author uses this for purpose of saying in article "this individual was either Caucasian Albanian or Armenian." It is unclear if we should rely on a sole reference with no explanation labeling this individual as Albanian, especially without an explanation.Hetoum I 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering, but the quote is from K.Trever, who was one of the top Russian experts on Caucasian Albania. I see no reason why this reference should not be used. After all, we need to include all existing scholarly opinions, not just one. --Grandmaster 06:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
there is both the quote, and interpreting the quote in context. I paraphrase it: since the area he came from was mostly occupied or dominated by Armenians at that time, he must have either been an Armenian, or a Albanian writing in Armenian.

This would I think support that the person were either Armenian or Albanian--but what is the dispute, because if he wrote in Armenian, how could he have been other than an Armenian or someone having considerable Armenian cultural influence.? On the other hand, I don't see how it supports flat out saying he was an Albanian, unless its known otherwise he wasn't an Armenian, or there is an hypothesis he was of another nationality altogether. But the way to go is to word the matter to show it is Trever's opinion: Trever concludes that ... . DGG (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Historians tend to avoid the issue of his ethnicity, since he was a native to Albania, born in the province of Utik, but wrote in Armenian. For example, Vladimir Minorsky, who was one of the top experts on the history of the region, referred to him as follows:
The work of the indigenous historian of Albania, Moses Kalankatvats'i, who wrote in Armenian (10th century), contains many important data, but his obscure hints and sudden breaks in the main thread are often exasperating.
V. Minorsky. Caucasica IV. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953), pp. 504-529.
So Armenian ethnicity of this person is not something universally accepted. I believe it would be fair to present all existing opinions about his origin, and not just one as Hetoum suggests. The language of the book is not a proof of author’s ethnicity, for example, Rustam Ibragimbekov writes in Russian, but he is not an ethnic Russian. --Grandmaster 07:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I did intend this to be just a privately friendly chat, but I suppose I should by now get an email to avoid wikistalking :). Thank you for the explanation, it helped me. I find disputed articles difficult and confusing to balance, and wanted to ask this in a general manner, as this issue often comes up in more than one article.Hetoum I 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you want me not to be a part of this discussion, that's fine. I will not be posting here anymore. I just thought that it would be useful to hear the other side of the story as well to form an opinion. I would just like to remind you to assume goof faith and not accuse others of wikistalking. You may wish to check first what it actually means. Regards, --Grandmaster 04:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
anyone who thinks my view would be helpful is welcome here. But at some point it is fairer for the discussion has to return to where everyone working on the article will see it. In articles, all responsible opinion should be heard, and presented concisely and accurately. If there are alternative hypotheses, they should be presented. I take a very broad view of what can be stated, if some indication is given of the qualificiations. But the interpretation is key --look again--the questioned quote did not say he was Armenian, just Armenian or Armenian influenced. Most good scholars leave themselves a way out. You are welcome to transfer all of this to the article talk page if you think it helps.
I agree with that. Scholars are very cautious with this issue, because it is not even known whether the book was written by one or a number of authors. And there are different opinions about the origin of Movses, I believe they should all be presented fairly. I also agree that further discussions should be held at talk of the article. Sorry for any inconvenience. Grandmaster 12:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahey archipelago[edit]

That the Wallace Line exists is not in question. It has its own article. What is in question is the archipelago's existence. That doesn't seem to appear on any map, including the one in your reference. Kelisi 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (I goofed) DGG

Faculty of Agriculture Zagazig University[edit]

Why did you revert my addition of a CSD tag to that article? It obviously isn't still under construction, despite your assertion to the contrary, since the last edit was made over two months ago and has been left in it's skeletal, contentless state ever since. You can be an 'inclusionist' all you want, but if you don't know how to tell whether or not an article qualifies for speedy deletion, don't remove speedy delete tags. 24.146.29.231 05:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kenoyim[edit]

Would you mind deleting this once and for all? The MfD is over a week old and the sole contributor has left WP. It has just been an eyesore on my watchlist, that's all. Thanks, DLandTALK 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries[edit]

I have in the last couple of days called for keeping a plot summary for Les Miserables, Angel (TV series) and Buffy (TV series) because the Hugo novel is important in popular culture, and one hears references to it or to situations and characters in it, but no one should have to plow through the endless turgid prose and meandering plot. The TV series are quite different. The plot article provides an overview of the plot arc for the season, which is an emergent property not found in the extremely short capsule summaries for each episode. I am opposed to having detailed, scene by scene plot summaries of every comedy, drama, and cartoon, but a well written overview of series with season-long plot arcs seems quite encyclopedic. These do not relate every event from every episode. I know there is a bias against keeping an article because it is "useful" (heaven forbid anyone should ever find something "useful" in Wikipedia), but if I've heard about a TV show like "Lost" with a complex plot line, knowing the history of the show helps make the next episode comprehensible and entertaining. Seeing one sentence about each episode of a show which has been on several years does not give the reader/viewer the "big picture" like the 2 TV plot guides do. I feel that WP:NOT strongly needs a revision to this effect, but I am all too aware that a cabal will smite down anyone who tries to change a policy without "consensus" when it only takes one or two doctrinaire editors to object and deny that consensus and revert the change. Consensus can also be shown by a set of AFD outcomes. Other TV shows like this might be "The Sopranos," "X-Files" or any other long running series wherein there are plot arcs beyond the individual episode. In contrast, many comedies, cop shows, westerns like "Gunsmoke", and even juvie sci-fi series like "Lost in Space" had pretty much stand alone episodes, with little or no carryover of plot elements from one episode to the next. The fallback position is to call for the season-arc episode guides to replace the existing series-long episode guides in articles about such shows as "Buffy" or "Angel." Shows like these two have been the subject of reviews and conferences with scholarly papers read, and there have been books written about each season, so one could add as many references as necessary to satisfy any requirement that the content be reference based and not OR. Edison 16:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 100 references for the main Buffy the Vampire Slayer article. Major references for the plot arcs would be the series of books called "The Watcher's Guide". These are reliable, but arguably not independent, since they have ties to 20th Century Fox. But there are lots of fully reliable and independent sources about the larger plot arcs, also listed as refs at the Buffy main article, such as DVD reviews at Rotten Tomatos, many of which are from legitimate sources such as Salon, which has editorial supervision and identified reviewers (as opposed to fan reviews)., for instance [6]. There is the whole Buffy studies which lists academic works on the series, for those who are more into it than casual watchers such as me. Edison 17:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Central Lafourche High School[edit]

Thank you very much for un-prodding this article. Some poor newbie (probably a kid at the school) started the article. I've wikified it a bit. You deserve a BARNSTAR for helping this one out and for WP:AGF. I really agree heartily with you that "notable alumni make notable high schools", e.g., Bronx High School of Science. ;-) Bearian 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Closed AfD[edit]

Thou art much confused, my friend.  :-) T'was not I that commited this close! — Coren (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Past Presidents[edit]

A valid point about the references. They were already in the article (but rather hidden)and now I've given them their own spot at the bottom of the page. As having members with WP articles, the pickings are slim. But where you might see an AFD, I see a small project of sorts. Many of the people on that list are notable professors/teachers/scientists in their own right. So, I was planning to Start writing articles on a few past presidents of interest, and give them overdue praise for their contributions to education and science. I'd be happy to discuss this further, but probably not tonight--I'm off to sleep. Violadamore

sampling deletions[edit]

I've replied on my talk page. SamBC 06:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Bock[edit]

Responded at length over on Talk:Aaron Bock, however, would just like to point out again that I was under the impression it is up on AfD for attack, not for notability. However, I disagree with both of these and would like to remedy that in whatever way possible. I've never encountered this problem before, and I've submitted numerous biographies here. Thanks! --Mrprada911 07:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Living Waters Christian Fellowship[edit]

Hi. I noticed you removed the speedy deletion tag on this and replaced it with a proposed deletion, as "churches don't fit speedy for notability". Speedy category (A7) covers "groups of people" - or are religious groups of people exempt from this?

pablo .  ... talk ... 08:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

disputable, so prod is safer. DGG
OK, but seeing as the template itself cites "It is an article about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. " (my emboldening) then I'm quite happy with speedy deletion rather than prod. Otherwise why is this article more legitimate than Tunbridge Wells Psychopathic Gay Society or any other group of people?

pablo .  ... talk ... 23:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Arthur B. Robinson[edit]

Thanks for fixing the links there, but they still aren't showing right. What did you do to fix them? If you have a minute take a look at how they still look. Funny to me. Sky 12:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC). Now fixed.DGG

michael[edit]

Thanks DGG. I wrote the source text for Video Interactions for Teaching and Learning and will figure out next week how to transfer the copyright, or rewrite to be different enough for WP consumption. References can follow. I don't have the source article so it would be nice if it were reinstated. emailed. I strongly suggest rewriting. It won't hold up in any case without strong outside refs. DGG

Aspergineering[edit]

Hi there; you make a most interesting comment here, with which I do not argue, but merely wish to learn from. You state that neologisms are always deletable by {{prod}}, not by {{speedy}}. Are you stipulating that this is wiki policy? I should point out that I have not changed your comments on the page in question. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - spelled it wrong. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have got to say that yes, I tend to delete obvious neologisms, and no-one has complained yet. If there is a possibility of argument then, yes, I go to {{prod}}. Or WP:AfD. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I plan on continuing to delete obviously nonsense neologisms, and wait for policy guidance. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A Treatise on White Magic[edit]

You say: "not a good wp article, but not empty enough for speedy, so i sent it to prod".

Do you have any idea how discouraging that comment is? How bad does an article have to be to be considered unacceptable? If even that piece of junk does not qualify for removal, then Wikipedia standards are too low to justify the effort of editing. Kwork 22:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(might actually be notable) DGG

The book is notable within a very tiny community of Alice Bailey followers. No one else reads ever reads it, and few among them bother. That includes the person who wrote the article, because it is clear to someone who has read the book that the editor who wrote the article had not read it. In my view, in this sort of case, it is best to remove the defective article. As it stands now, Wikipedia is presenting an article to the public that is worthless. There is also a second article on the same subject White Magic (Alice A. Bailey).. Kwork 12:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote on my user page: first of all, i was in some doubt whether the subject is in fact notable, for the author appeared to be notable,--though I see now that you also had some objections to the biographic article about the author--I had not seen that at the time I prodded. I'm not an expert in the subject, so I didn't want to decide that for myself, and therefore prod'ed. I've now gone back and removed the content to which I objected, so I removed the prod. & substituted tags for notability and unsourced. If you disagree, by all means take it to AfD where it can be discussed--I also am willing to go by the consensus there.

My objection to the Alice Bailey article is that it does not give a neutral point of view, and uses her self published autobiography as the only meaningful source. There was plenty of discussion over that, but my tag was removed. Kwork 12:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

afd procedures[edit]

Keeping in mind that AFD's are not a vote, a more distinct visual clue (like a colorful icon) helps to give a closing admin more a general idea of the majority consensus. What's more, these icons are in wide use (just look at the AFD logs for the last week). So if you have a problem with them, better to bring it up at the appropriate project or policy talk pages (rather than dictating to individual users how they should present their views on an AFD). VanTucky (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I will do both. DGG (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Orbit Award[edit]

Not my place to do the author's research before proding. If it isn't in the article, then I am assuming it isn't important enough to be there and therefore, it isn't notable. The author has the responsibility of establishing notability, not the proder. 172.145.177.55 02:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more--we cooperate to improve articles, and delete the ones that we cant improve. DGG

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wauwatosa West High School[edit]

You may want to limit yourself to one vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wauwatosa West High School, perhaps by combining the text of your two votes. Alansohn 05:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode review TfD[edit]

I posted this on the TfD as well, but I really wanted to make sure you saw my reply:

DGG, I can't stress this enough, these tags were never meant to be used like this. They were never meant to be added in mass without the tagger looking at the articles and doing some initial evaluation. Abuse of the tool should be addressed, deleting the tool because one user over did it is not a good thing, and just screws everyone else over. The discussions themselves are now being held on individual "list of episodes" articles, instead of a centralized area, and these tags are a way to help more people collaborate with the process. By deleting these templates you are only making that small group stay small. A new idea will always start small, but on Wikipedia things like that grow extremely fast. If you snipe the process before it has a change to get off the ground, then people won't be able to find it. The first template was nominated for deletion before a single episode article even got reviewed. -- Ned Scott 05:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have come to oppose the entire project, because of the demonstrated effect it has already had on articles. I think the reasonably extended presentation of content of a primary source is appropriate--though I agree that it should be accompanied by analysis. I particularly dislike the method that is being applied-- that the correct policy that there should be both presentation and analysis is being addressed not by adding content discussing the material, but by removing material presenting it. I do agree however, that some of the existing discussions were over-detailed. I agree with merging individual episode articles. I do not agree with deleting their basic content, and such is the practical effect of the tag. DGG (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I respect that and all, think about things like WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. It's not that, it would be nice to have real world information, but rather, we require real world information. This "project" was started as a way to find potential in episodes, rather than taking them to AfD. You seem to be blaming to the process because no one can find the potential, or even something to hint towards the potential.
You said: "that the correct policy that there should be both presentation and analysis is being addressed not by adding content discussing the material, but by removing material presenting it. "
Did you stop to think, maybe there wasn't anything to add? -- Ned Scott 03:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And as far as merging goes, I haven't been watching the closure themselves that much, but stuff should be merged that can be merged. I'm sorry if anyone is not doing this, and if you have any specific review in mind I'll volunteer to clean up the mess myself. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
fair enough, and I've had these discussions end up in joint projects before. Even afds sometimes end that way. its the way things should go.

(and I was about to send:

for video shows and the like, the question of finding material is relative tricky for me, because I myself am neither willing nor qualified to find the material, and it's uncomfortable making bare assertions of the existence of material. (though i think the plot of these shows does tend to be discussed in both specialist publications and often newspapers, for at least the most prominent--certainly for shows like the Sopranos. And they also are increasingly discussed in academic writing on popular culture--but the discussion inevitably comes several years behind. But in this part of the field I'm a consumer, not a producer--I want to read the material, not write it. The only area of pop culture where there is good material of this sort in the articles is rock music, where many easily available publication do analyze it, and the followers know about them.
However, for something where I know the research methods a little better, and where it was challenged, I did find it--Les miserables. There were at least a hundred articles in Google Scholar that clearly discussed the plot, and I was able to select 5 or 6 where the titles made it really evident.

Had i done a serious job with professional indexes and non-english sources, I could have found many more. And from these the critical material could be written. But WPedians are not that great on academic writing, as you know, and it will be a while until the work gets done. I would not remove the articles in the meantime. i would keep, and add.

had those challenging spent the time on adding material to the articles where possible, instead challenging them and removing them, it would have been a start. Of course, had those defending them spent half their arguing time on adding, it would have been better as well. The tendency at AfDs in general on all topics of people to say there is material, and cite it at length at at the Afd, but put off adding it to the article doesn't help. Anyone can edit, and most are lazy about it. I'd love to have a rule that one could not place an afd without documenting where one had looked. I wont delete a speedy or expired prod until i've confirmed the absence for myself. (I'm talking generally here, not this project in particular, and certainly not you in particular.) DGG (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination)[edit]

Hello, I am contacting you because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi, which resulted in the deletion of Francesco Dionigi. A new article has been created about the same person, Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro. I have nominated it for deletion, and you may wish to read the new article and comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about???[edit]

When did I create a topic heading called Barbarians anything? LoveMonkey 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC) OK let me put you to the test so as to give you a crystal understanding of the horrible mess that my wikipedia experience has been. Here is an article about the Cherokee Native Americans. Ani-kutani This article purposed that according to Cherokee history that a secret society which has technology (including a written language predating Sequoyah). Still exists and is now in Missouri. This article actually does to the Native Americans what Plotinus was stating in his Tract Against the Gnostics that the Gnostics did to Hellenic culture and Philosophy specifically Platonic philosophy. Here is the article as I found it. A good bit of this article is indeed a hoax. As it exists now. [7] (text of article removed-DGG)


I am a little puzzled about what you intend. I know almost nothing about the Cherokee, and so I cannot judge what might be plausible, though the article sounds rather unlikely--after all though, the question is what they think happened, not what did happen.


Exactly that. Let me state that there is no longer according to the very famous James Mooney ANY Ani-kutani. According to the book I quoted they where completely whipped several hundred years ago. Long before the trail of tears. James Mooney is what the tribes in Oklahoma use for tribal history from the 1800s back. Nothing in his history or tribal history validates that a written language for the Cherokee predates Sequoyah. There is no mention of any secret group, Ani-kutani were a priest faction that became tyrannical and where whipped out by the warriors of the tribe a long long long time ago. They where not allow to survive at all. There is no University or acedemic study that states "many ancient objects and archives written in this ancient Ah-ni-ku-ta-ni syllabary that record the original ceremonies of the Cherokee". This is someone claiming that tablets or steles exist that don't exist. Much as the Sethian stated that their text predated Moses. These are the tactics that Irenaeus outlined that the gnostics used against Christianity On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis. They are also the tactics that Plotinus outlined that the gnostics used against Hellenic and or Platonic philosophy. They are also some what eluded to as tactics used by the minith by Philo against the Hebrew. Since you are unfamiliar with Native American culture then this should actually make it all bery clear to you. There is no group that secretly supercedes the Cherokee Indians relgion and history a conman has read Mooney and saw how they could use this ancient history to distort and then hijack the entire groups culture, relgion and heritage. Again this is what Plotinus was pointing out this is what I added to his BIO this is what got me in an edit war here. This is what people will not allow be posted on Wikipedia..... Because of political correction you can see that we are having a nightmare of a time stating our case. Since now wikipedia has decided in it's brillian wisdom to not allow people use words like cult or heretic. Please understand what makes Plotinus very ugly is that not only does sever the gnostics claim of being legitimately Platonic. He also alligns them with the Sophists. Who beleived that there was no truth only power. Or Might is right or all relgious people are fools to be herded. I know I am getting kinda Dostoevsky (demons but that is the point. LoveMonkey 12:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

James Mooney had contact with less than .001% of the Cherokee People during his studies and for a few years only. We know our history quite well, including the role of this group. I doubt James Mooney, a white historian, has access to the uper exchelons of our religious groups, and even if he did, they would not have given him the detailed information you claim. Also, do **NOT** post any more harassing comments like the ones on my talk page you placed there. Wa-do. Also, do you really believe we would allow sacred texts to be "studied" by a group of University professors who are ignorant of our language and culture? This comment indicates the same attitude of "superiority" Christians have to other religions. i.e. Native Religions can be "studied" but the Bible, which has been proven over 90% of it is a book of fables that never happened, is considered "divine" by the stupid and ignorant being duped out of their money every week by organized religions. v-tla-yi-go-li-ga ni-ga. Ni-go-di-s-ge-s-di. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr Merkey with all do respect what is your tribal bureau name? What is your government tribal ID. Are you sir on any tribal roles if so are they recognized by any government authority? Who? Also sir please name your sources. I used a very respected one in the anthropologist James Mooney. Please show me where any of the established tribes in Oklahoma acknowledge what you are saying. Here is such an example... [8] this source acknowledges Mooney. Please reframe from labeling harrassment people questioning the validatity of the hoax that you sir are probagating. I have provided a scholar that is indeed accepted by the tribes in Oklahoma who are federally recognized Native Americans. Please provide the same type of validation. LoveMonkey 17:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Plotinus[edit]

OK I have added the parts back to the Plotinus article. LoveMonkey 13:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:AfDs[edit]

DGG, no need to apologize on your part. I've noticed that we often disagree on AfDs, but I have found your contributions well-intentioned and well-reasoned.

If LoveMonkey wants to userfy the conference article, then certainly the AfD could be withdrawn/closed. I actually haven't proposed anything at WP:FORK, I just wanted to indicate that Doug's contribution sprung from a specific debate. I probably am not being friendly enough, but I think you can understand that I'm a bit frustrated with the state of affairs. I appreciate your advice, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment would be appreciated[edit]

  • At the stub Genealogia deorum gentilium I just made an article from. Please edit to make any improvements you can see or give me some suggestions on the article Talk Page. Thanks.--Doug talk 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Afd for Wauwatosa West High School[edit]

I believe you have weighed in twice in this discussion. Would you consider merging your statements?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 01:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to weigh in a little, probably not my place, but what's wrong with weighing in twice? It's a discussion, not a vote, and it's useful in most cases to see how the comments flow from one to another as responses and so on. Especially, it's not a vote. Did I mention that it's not a vote? ;) SamBC 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
well, originally I had said "delete" twice. But i had changed one to a comment--though both said about the same thing. DGG (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

academics[edit]

Dear DGG,

Thank you for your comment on my (would be/might be) contributions to Wikipedia.

It's my first experience with editing on Wikipedia. The initial reason why I intruded was a hyperlink to a wrong person, having the same name as the referent. My "contributions" are the follow-up of my attempt to correct this error.

As to the substance of your suggestion, I have no access to extensive bio data of the persons in question, although I know these people by correspondence. If you are in possession of their recent bio data, I am willing to collaborate on improving the articles.

Anstan07 08:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Prof Leigh[edit]

DGG, thanks for contributing to David_Leigh(scientist). I had just wanted to disambiguate the name as "David Leigh" (journalist) already existed and David Leigh (scientist) is newsy on account of the recent buzz about rotaxane machines. The list of honors you added doesn't have references, but I in-linked the Royal Society of Chemistry. Unfortunately their external site seems to be down at the moment. But the important thing, to me, is that people who want to learn more about nanotech won't get dead-ended by a name in the news. Pete St.John 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Copyright Status[edit]

Hey DGG, could you take a look at this and advise me on it?

I'm generally unfamiliar with the process of images where the copyright is granted by an outside source. This picture (Image:FrancescaGagnon1.jpg)is being used in an article that I'm writing. I received the picture from her record label along with permission to use it. He says that it's free-use and I notice that after I uploaded it, a GDSL-self message appeared in the licensing section. Now what do I do to get rid of the copyright warning on the image's page? Thank you, Trusilver 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent design FAR[edit]

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Marlene Robottom[edit]

Hi! I think your comment on the talk page of this contested speedy delete may have been deleted accidentally as the last edit was mine and is at exactly the same second as your entry which no longer appears. Sorry. There is nothin' like a dame 20:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

On reflection in case you did not leave a message and just left the edit summary can you please recreate it so it does not appear that I deleted the speedydelete notice (which I am not allowed to do, obviously, as the creator of the article) as I am the last editor of record.

Thanks!!There is nothin' like a dame 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A Lot Of Tagging[edit]

Checking back on my contributions I've noticed you've changed a lot of my tags recently . . . am I not accurately assessing certain articles, and if so how can I improve? -WarthogDemon 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Shinerama[edit]

What do you want to do with it? AfD? -- Y not? 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Pavlina undelete sources.[edit]

I've added sources for his Presidency and Vice-Presidency of ASP now. The awards he won for Dweep awards are referenced on the page for Dweep. Is there anything else you'd like sourced? Thanks.

Note: I've posted the above text to the undelete page too.--Irrevenant [ talk ] 01:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the Dweep awards to his page now too. Was there anything else that needed to be cited? --Irrevenant [ talk ] 21:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced[edit]

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Pranava Veda[edit]

References are added see both the main page and the talk page, thanks for Visiting the article and taking interest in the same. This is a very rare treatise. BalanceRestored 05:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The cited article was surprisingly redirected.... :) BalanceRestored 09:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite right[edit]

Deleting Dubey uma dutt anjan would have been wrong as you poined out, but could you rename it.... KnowledgeHegemony 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

academics[edit]

Thanks for your navigation. I added something from GGC’s old resume, which I found on the Internet and books from WorldCat and Amazon. I’ll be trying to add some more substantial info on both academics’ work from other sources.

Anstan07 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this is fine, better for most concern[edit]

(RE Botany Bot -- your note on my talk page, quick response.) Yes, this is fine. All species on this list will eventually have pages and should get pages before a lot of other species. It would be better if the bot did species of most concern first. I don't have time to contact the bot's writer, but you could ask this, or I will later. I don't think the bot's writer in this case is a biologist. Thanks for checking. KP Botany 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I addressed concerned on the Bot's owner's/programmer's/whatever's page. Thanks for bringing it up, the bot is using pink taxoboxes instead of the lightgreen for plants, and using alternative family names where Wikipedia articles are under the -aceae ending names (and for a bot there are some problems doing the former, that the latter does not have). I also asked the programmer to refocus priority listings for species of most concern. KP Botany 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Reed Business[edit]

As I'm sure you already know, I've been working on the Reed Business Information articles. I had a quick question for you, even though I'm sure I already know the answer. Would it be out of line to add a link on the each magazine article to a free subscription website? It seems silly to ask but before I do anything "bold" I want admin approval. Thanks again. Sean Montgomery 14:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I thought a subscription link would be out of line, I noticed one on Industrial Distribution and removed it. I will remove any others I see. I came to you because another admin and user recommended you. As for adding so many small articles, I was trying to get many started and see if I couldn't get more help from the Wikiproject editors. Working by myself would be difficult, and I also feel control over these articles should not be left to one person, especially me (ha ha kidding). I'll try to build existing articles more, but my resources are limited. Thank you again for your help. Sean Montgomery 19:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please take another look at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 5[edit]

Hi, I've redone the Goetz school article on my user pages and made some other comments at the bottom of the deletion-review discussion. I'm asking editors to comment on the changes I've made because they represent a new development, one I think we can form a pretty wide consensus around. I think the article as I've redone it meets the objections of many editors, and it certainly meets WP:V. Please take a look, but I think this deletion review will close today or early tomorrow, so please don't delay, act now and take advantage of this limited-time offer! Noroton 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Schweitzer[edit]

I'm not the guy who nominated the article for the speedy deletion, I just saw it on the Contested Speedy Deletions page and noticed there was no explanation on the talk page. So I took the information I had and tried to provide an explanation to Jeff (the only other contributor to the talk page) why his article had been listed for speedy deletion. Based on the text, I presumed the reasons were either conflict of interest or non-notability (the guy says so himself on the talk page). Either way, thanks for the status update on the article and hopefully he'll add some sources. Useight 19:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, that's what an administrator is supposed to do (I hope to try to become an admin myself in a month or two). I also noticed on your userpage that you are an inclusionist, so that makes sense. Anyway, I commend your efforts. Useight 19:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks![edit]

Thanks for your clarification on List of 1930s nostalgia films. It's been a while since I proposed a deletion, speedy or otherwise, and the skill become very rusty. ,) David Spalding (  ) 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiEN-l[edit]

Hi David. I was just wondering if you could explain how to become a member of this list. Thanks, Giggy UCP 22:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not use my real name for personal reasons. As for WP:ML, all it says is that Most lists are moderated, so that posts by nonmembers need to be manually approved. This doesn't really help me find out how to get approved, but I'll keep looking. Thanks again, Giggy UCP 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think I got it working. Thanks for you help! Giggy UCP 23:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Episodes[edit]

I saw your comment on the Notability page. So I take it you'd rather see something like this for television show episodes, rather than something like this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Printing[edit]

No, I think it was an honest mistake - my edit summary was meant to be taken literally, not as minatory (perhaps not the best phrasing). He is on the warpath again at Four Great Inventions of ancient China but I don't worry too much about that. There's absolutely no chance of me going for admin. Keep up the good work at AfD etc, & I'm still waiting for the Master of the Playing Cards expansion. Johnbod 03:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who listen to video game music on WP:UCFD again[edit]

This category is again nominated for discussion at user categories for discussion. Since you contributed to the last discussion, you may wish to say something in the current one, which was started on 8 July 2007. This is a courtesy notice I'll be leaving for everyone who contributed in the last UCFD nomination and not in the current one. BigNate37(T) 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

From Anil Aggrawal[edit]

Hi David. I just saw your post on the page of our journal on forensic medicine. I deeply appreciate your comments, and I think you are perfectly correct. I am a lesser being and I need guidance from you. Kind regards Anil

Markarian[edit]

Will do, thanks!--Moosh88 20:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:villages[edit]

Alright, thanks. I'm not going to dispute that. Cool Bluetalk to me 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

E-bigamy[edit]

Prod to E-bigamy has since been removed. Should I afd this? -WarthogDemon 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done! -WarthogDemon 23:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For keeping AfD sane, and not letting the deletionists run wild, you deserve this barnstar. Use it well! Giggy UCP

RFV[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Wikipedia:Requests_for_verification new comment DGG (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move of Frank Moore (artist) to Frank James Moore (artist)[edit]

Hi DGG. You participated in the AfD discussion of Frank Moore (candidate). It was proposed there that the article be renamed. I have opened up a move discussion at Talk:Frank Moore (artist)#Requested_move. Please give your opinion there. I'm assuming that the AfD participants also intended to rename the redirect Frank Moore (candidate) to Frank James Moore (candidate), but that's only a guess. I notified a couple of the other AfD participants, but gave up on leaving messages for all. EdJohnston 03:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Year pages[edit]

The ones nominated for speedy do indeed look to meet CSD A3 (and probably A1) to me, as they contain neither context nor content, just links. I did notice that you objected, though, what is the reason for your objection? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review: Rfwoolf/Evidence[edit]

Hi there. A Miscellany for deletion article you recently commented on has been speedy-deleted citing "CSD G10 (Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject)."
A good-willed editor has opened up a deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_12#User:Rfwoolf.2FEvidence
You of course may be too busy, or not interested, I am nonetheless informing, in case you wish to add any further --what I deem to be -- constructive input on the deletion. Rfwoolf 11:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

FBI Silvermaster File Speedy Delete a little too speedy[edit]

I just found out about the speedy delete and never got a chance to do a "hang on" challenge. This is a huge collection of documents and historically important. It deserves an article and I thought I'd put up a short stub and draw some collaborators to improve it. Instead I got a no context speedy delete and the article was deleted a single day later. I think that this is a bit much. TMLutas 19:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It hadn't been improved because I had fallen ill a few hours after I had posted it. No way for you to know, of course. I was still out of sorts when I posted the above comment. TMLutas 06:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

deletion Review[edit]

(copied from User talk:DESiegel'):

the guy who made that strange NN/BLP deletion has also made single-handed deletion as "OR" [9] , & deleted the admitted nonsensical but long pages He became a admin on or about June 17 & has mostly stuck to images and talk pages and such. DGG (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have commetned on his talk page. Interestigly his comments here on a related issue I find myself in pretty close agreement with. It is only when BLP intrudes that he seems to get over-eager. i haven't reviewd any of his image deletions, of course. DES (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
& good [10] & an immense amount of excellent & appropriate grunt work with the tools. to enlist, if possible. DGG (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at User talk:CBM#Deleted articles and my recent exchangfe with CBM there. Your views ar welcome. DES (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

your deletion of MOSAIC (housing cooperative)[edit]

Hi, I am the creator of said article and I am wondering why exactly you deleted it. I felt that the article was in line with WP:Notability. In the article, I provided two independent news sources both of which exclusively report on the cooperative. Likewise, many of the cooperatives listed in North_American_Students_of_Cooperation have their respective articles. I am sorry, but I don't see how this cooperative fails notability. Aside from that, the article was speedily deleted yesterday and since I just got a notice of that about 5 minutes ago, I did not get a chance to add a hangon tag. Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you. -Fendersmasher 02:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you and i appreciate the help. -Fendersmasher 03:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Caledonian-Record[edit]

Greetings, I was wondering if you could go to this Afd and provide any input possibly? Thanks. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis[edit]

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

damn, you're fast! Noroton 04:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification[edit]

Response at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification#How long before delete unreferenced article?. We both know that there is some unreferenced content in Wikipedia that is not appropriate. I am asking you to help me build a tool that will address that problem. There are a thousand what if's and a million more discussion, but lets start someplace. We can build a tool that is an appropriate compromise between M:Inclusionism and M:Exclusionism. Jeepday (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to work with you, because first of all in individual cases good people generally agree on most subjects, and also because I think cooperation including people known for different views of things will be more readily accepted--as it should, because there will be less individualistic bias. Also agreed that inclusionism and inclusionism are not the right terms for most things and people (the only real inclusionists in a pejorative sense are those who want an article on every human, & the only exclusionists in that sense are those who would confine us to the limits of paper.
I'm not sure we could build an inclusive tool: there are too many problems why they might be inappropriate--and the basic problem isn't in my opinion unreferenced--the reason unreferenced picks up so many problems, is that unreferenced articles are often defective in other ways.
There are also areas where there is no agreement on inclusions, and if there is to be a general effort it probably should stay clear of these, which should be discussed separately until there is some real continuing consensus: crimes, plots, for example. If we go too fast on these we may end up doing the work over as consensus changes.
As policy, I am only willing to cooperate on a project aimed at deletion if there is a genuine commitment to improvement when possible, or if there is a high bar to limit consideration to the articles almost certainly unimprovable. For example, many business articles as they stand are not adequate, but could be improved in knowledgeable people used the right sources, and for this example there's a shortage. We can still work cooperatively, but in perhaps different ways.
The only tools I know of are good objective human beings. Only humans can integrate disparate factors. But there can be technical helps. Personally, in my own opinion I think them secondary--my preferred approach to weeding--and as a librarian I have certainly done a lot of it, though to storage, not disposal--is repeated systematic passes through even the largest set, looking for particular criteria each time. WP has 2 million articles. I've worked with collections that size--though not doing it all myself. But I haven't done them all myself. There was a philosophy common to all, agreed to and applied over 40 years by over a hundred very individualistic professionals--get the obvious, leave the others for a subsequent round. This is the way to go fast. Our consistency was pretty good--the rate of restoration from storage to main collection has been well under 1%. But we had commitment to one common principle: the goal was to help the users, & anything the users had found useful in recent years was to be kept.

Since you started here, lets keep the general discussion here. I'll do a separate archive if appropriate. DGG (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed, As you know I work towards inclusion and improvement. on questionable content I am more likely to suggest delete then you are, but I readily accept keeping with a less stringent verification requirement then you. Improvement is the primary goal. "high bar to limit consideration to the articles almost certainly unimprovable" I am not sure that you can dictate this in usage, I understand what you are saying, and I think I have addressed it by placing a very low threshold for removal (or nonplacement) of the template. Like anything there will be room to misuse it but, as proposed placing the template is only a suggestion for deletion. Even if absolutely no references are added to the article, before it can be deleted an adim has to come along and agree to remove the article by actually deleting it. Additionally it places articles in a category, that will be monitored (the same as Category:All articles proposed for deletion for much longer then a prods 5 days. I made some changes (earlier today) to Wikipedia:Requests for verification take a look and see what we need to address. Jeepday (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
the problem is that one person can place templates in one day that will take ten people a year to address. Thus the end result of such a process, however, well intended, will be destructive. I care for WP, and do not wish to sacrifice half of the potentially good articles.
You trust the accuracy of admins more than I do; I am one of them, and from doing the work, know how easy it is to make mistakes. DGG (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think putting source tags on uncontroversial statements it diverts energy from challenging and sourcing the controversial ones, and is not a constructive way of improving the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is potential for worthwhile articles to be deleted with {{RfV}}. Keep in mind there is no original work in Wikipedia so no knowledge will be lost, articles may be temporarily not on Wikipedia, but someone will add them back. I try to focus more on the future, think of the benefits in 3 to 5 years, every article will be verified. Thanks for joining the team at Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced articles Jeepday (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I am glad we agree on where we are going.But WP is also for today, and removing articles in the hope that someone will add back the notable ones is not in my opinion a reasonable approach.
Incidentally, I maintain some degree of sanity here by not getting over-involved in the fate of individual articles. I know I can't save them all, or, for that matter, delete them all. And certainly not get them all written right. DGG (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Validation rule[edit]

LOL Do you really think your version of Validation rule is better then mine History, or are you just trying to make a point this morning? The day is calling me away from the computer, have a good one I will check back probably tomorrow. Jeepday (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize: I think I must have gone about this wrong. I was in all innocence proposing an example to discuss, and i think I said so on your page. The article made some sense to me, but I have only a peripheral knowledge. As it turns out, both of us were wrong about that example--see your talk page, where I explain fully. As I see it, it shows the bad effects of answering too fact, or in response to a challenge. DGG (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
DGG - Slow down and take a breath. You are compounding your errors, see my responses User talk:Jeepday History. In attempting to verify and clearly state my objections I may seem a little brisk in the response, no WP:BITE is intended, just trying to provide evidence. Jeepday (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Apologies all around I guess, from me as well. Challenges seem to sometimes have unfortunate side effects. :)

our MIT grad[edit]

suggestion--why dont you simply stubbify? the article is outrageous, to be sure. But he seems to be notable.DGG (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey DGG (talk) let me begin by saying, I see your edits on a daily bases and just have to say “Good Job”. Regarding the article on Dr. DiLorenzo, it is self-serving and does not establish “Notoriety” other than in the authors own mind. I did a Google search on Dr. DiLorenzo, and sorry to say, I found not one noteworthy piece out of the grand total of three listed. Two being personal websites and the third Wikipedia. Hopefully this explains the reasoning behind my “Afd” nomination. ShoesssS Talk
yes, afd seems fair. [11] seems to be a real ref, that might be enough to establish notability. The others are MIT alumni publications, I'm going to suggest to the anon author that he withdraw the article and start over, on the grounds that the nonsense will prejudice the article. DGG (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. And the best to Dr. DiLorenzo ShoesssS Talk 01:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(just wanted to add--I think there were other refs in the article, but they were done as inline web links--it's easy to miss them. We discourage people from doing it in this quick and dirty way, just because people do miss them quite often. DGG (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

hey, thanks! for the comment at the AfD. DGG (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey DGG (talk) when you are right….”You Are Right”. No Thanks necessary. ShoesssS Talk 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RAUL[edit]

Thanks for the reply at least. I am not great at this but was very alarmed when I read his page. He only states that he was born, and attended 3 partys with famous people. The fact that he is at best an illegimate child a an actor he never met until he was in his 20's..and the widow disputes this fact as well as other people have listed at the bottom of the page. But what is even more concering is he has caused a serious problem in the Phill Spector trial and the judge is allowing the DA to have a week to get to the bottom of a major issue to hurt the Defense case in a way they will not recover. That and hearing the fraud case here in 2005 against Raul I feel the Wikipdeia will be under a looking glass for the world media who will be coming in droves to this page in the next week. For the sake of Wikipedia I think it should be removed until he, and I think it is clear it is writen by him to promote him self, till he corrects the page in proper Wiki style and show of some proof it is valid. It reads that he himself is of little interest or importance. Please bring this to ever needs to know this as I do not know how. I beleave this is all bogus. Thanks--Aeromedia 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a end of the LA Times article of Jul 12: By Peter Y. Hong, Times Staff Writer July 12, 2007

Spector's attorneys also wish to call to the witness stand Raul Julia-Levy, who they said is a former boyfriend of Clarkson. But Tuesday, responding to the prosecution's objections, Fidler delayed a ruling on whether he would allow Julia-Levy to testify. The judge gave the district attorney's office until next week to complete its investigation of the witness, who was recently added to the defense witness list.

"The defense will end up thanking me for taking the time," Fidler said in open court but with the jury absent. "In the long run, whatever happens, the delay will be helpful to both sides."

Julia-Levy identifies himself as the son of the late actor Raul Julia. His identity has been disputed by Julia's widow, Merel Julia, who married Raul Julia in 1976. Merel Julia told the New York Times in 2005 that Raul Julia-Levy was "an impostor." --Aeromedia 00:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SORRY!! I not great at this stuff, posting I hope now in the right place? Right? I beleave this comming Wednesday if not Thrusday is the day we'll hear the result in the Spector case if he will be allowed to be a witness and to what degree he is in slanderious condition. So having not been abel to have it removed I posted the informtaion of his site , as following what other people had strarted. I 'll up date it with important info if there is some or I'll remove any I add that is out of line, we'll see. On the courtv chats for Spector case, many people are hep to Raul and speak very strongly about his pretention. They all agree this is all fabrication. See the thing is I continualy have my posting removed while I am still writing them. And mine have much more inforamtion and worth and yet they are deleted right oput from under me. This page is ttoly in line for that for he not being a person of interest. But it is not up to me, I am fine with that. I don't understand the places or nowe have the energy to post to alert. Thanks --Aeromedia 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

G. Pels[edit]

Did you look at the history? When I prod'd the article, all it said was he was a Dutch astronomer and gave the years he was born and died. So no, I didn't look at his publication record because I couldn't see what was there. But now that I do see it, I am not going to AFD it.


Obviously notable? What kind of bias is that? There are no third party sources. It doesn't matter how "notable" fans claim it is, its not notable. Just because I just created a name doesn't mean I am not a standard contributor. I only created a name so I could put an article for deletion review instead of prodding. You were unnecessarily rude and you have no excuse for being rude. NobutoraTakeda 00:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Couldnt help on that one SatuSuro 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Peratt[edit]

Guess we just have different interpretations of notability, perhaps based on our personal experiences. I don't consider myself "notable" even though I have more pubs than Peratt and have served as Associate Editor for three different journals versus his one. Those are just the normal things that we do. (Mainstream versus non-mainstream is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.) It's a borderline case, as you say. Raymond Arritt 02:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

At some point the normal things one does become notable, if they are good enough. I will check the citation count for yours'. As for me, I'm safe: my citation counts are very low. (smile). DGG (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
heh, maybe I'll end up AfD'ing myself for lack of notability. That could be fun in a quasi-dadaist way. Cheers -Raymond Arritt 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually happened that way with a biologist around here- but he was held to be sufficiently important that he'd get the article anyway. He's gotten used to it. DGG (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Earth system science[edit]

Indeed, it would be nice if Wikipedia had an article on it, or at the very least a better section in another article. If I can find enough material for an article I will. I think there was a separate article at one time that was merged into the earth science article. Evolauxia 09:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Need to close debate on the Frank Moore move request soon[edit]

See Talk:Frank Moore (artist)#Requested_move. How do you feel about User:Bkonrad's idea that Frank Moore becomes a disambig, that our guy becomes Frank Moore (performance artist) and redirects are updated as appropriate. If you support this I'll go ahead and make the change. (Assuming I can do so successfully). If not I'll leave it for the move people to close it. EdJohnston 14:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversies of Chabad[edit]

The problem with this article is that it is not neutral to the point of being pure propaganda for the Chabad Chassidim. It amounts to a sales pitch for their religious beliefs, and is not a neutral article. Also this article is used to warehouse and neutralize problems that the editors are unwilling to have in the main Chabad article, which has even larger point of view problems. While I have some knowledge of the subject, it probably is not enough to re-edit the article. And I do not have the time to engage in the edit war re-writing would involve. Kwork 17:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

discussion started[edit]

A discussion has started here about rampant deleting and misreading of WP:NOT, etc. Would be interested in your opinion and advice. Tvoz |talk 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You rule![edit]

Ok openclipart.png This user is OK!
You are hereby awarded the Infrangible seal of approval for outstanding contributions and overall coolness. ~ Infrangible 01:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion/Analysis1[edit]

Did you mean to places this in article namespace? I tagged it for speedy, as it seems like something that belongs either on a user subpage, or in the wikipedia namespace. Seemed like an error in placement to me. Just wondering. Thanks, Resolute 04:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I figured it was a simple mistake when I noticed that an established editor had created it. Resolute 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopath[edit]

Thanks! I've closed the AFD and will watchlist the article for the while. >Radiant< 08:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

London Action Resource Center[edit]

I won't edit war, but I'll stand by the speedy. The article asserts notability for the building. It asserts notability for the previous tenants. It can even be construed as making a claim for notability of current tenants. It doesn't make any assertion of notability for the actual topic. Landlords don't become notable simply because they have notable tenants.Kww 17:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Summer colony[edit]

Hi, I noticed you tagged this article... I have made some example improvements to it and left a note on the talk page, if you have any comment I'd be interested. This seems like as good a project as any to spend a few hours on JSTOR making some improvements. --W.marsh 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Botaniates[edit]

I have added reference now. Thank you for reminding me that: ) Regards, --Gligan 07:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel J. Solove[edit]

OK on the content of your message. However, I did not copy his web page. There aren't many ways to say "So-so is a such-such and such".

Apart from that, who are you and why the ordering about? Hardly cricket, you know. Vincent 08:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Misunderstanding. I thought from your post that you wanted that article deleted. I also see what you mean about articles on professors, but I think he warrants one. I don't know much more than what I put though, so I'm hoping better informed people will pad it out. Cheers Vincent 08:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please check my MRC article again[edit]

Hi, please can you take another look at the MRC article? I need to start adding the rest of the Chemistry journals, and now the Blackwell staff have expressed an interest in Wikipedia as well so I might have a rather large project on my hands. Dchambers101 11:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pounds per square inch[edit]

Why was the Pounds per square inch article deleted? The content in the google cache doesn't look like anything bad. 65.110.140.155 15:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I was requested to move it as "cut and paste page move; page history has been left out see WP:MOVE" but checking back it seems more complicated than that-- has now been restored. thanks for catching the error. DGG (talk)
Could you please take another look at it? All we need is to stich history back together. maksdo 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Referred to WP:RM

AfD: article context[edit]

Hi there, thanks for pointing out on Lily Thorne's AfD that I failed to specify any context. I was in too big of a hurry! I have since added that she was a music video director. Eliz81 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Religious Science[edit]

You Stated Rev August Gold did not have a link so she is not important enought,if went by that some of SOM , Unity and New Thought teachers would be removed. One exsample is Catherine Ponder Of Unity she does not have a link and she is a major teacher not only Unity but the whole New Thought Movement. Gold is a important speaker on the SOM and New Thought circut. She heads the fastest growing SOM churchs in the country Sacred Center NY

As for August Gold, you need to write a full article, not just one giving links. The article will need to contain information about what she does that is notable, as shown by references to reliable 3rd party published sources--not blogs or self-published books. See WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS DGG (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine AfD[edit]

Since your changes were instrumental in avoiding the deletion of the article, I thought you'd be interested in this revert. Antelan talk 05:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Charles Darwin[edit]

The article on the Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online is a descriptive article about a major internet project under the most reputable sponsorship, supported by ref. from RS reviewing sources. (I can easily add a few more). Please restore it. (thought I'd ask you first) DGG (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Could I ask you to please re-write to reduce the "promotioal-flyer" tone of the article itself? I really can see why an editor tagged this with db-advert. DES (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Done DES (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, at least as far as any issues of promotional content are concerned. DES (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine[edit]

I have reverted to the version passed at AfD. The version you had before that would not have passed afd. It's that simple. Do not change back again. I suggest you put the remainder of the other content into an article by its own, or add it to History of the relationship of ... if you think it will be acceptable. DGG (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope we can both assume good faith here. I actually do want to make this article better. I don't understand how so much information can just be deleted, but you are obviously more experienced than me. Putting that aside for the moment, I looked at two AfD discussions for this article. They were overwhelming in favor of keeping the article. Your certainity that the other version of the article would not have passed AfD seems rather speculative . Touro OsteopathicFreak T 17:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. You said "it will be contentious enough unless it is scrupulously NPOV." I hear you. My point is that the current version is complete not NPOV, at all. And certainly not scrupulously. Do you have a suggestion for dealing with that? Touro OsteopathicFreak T 00:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Look at AfD for Allopathic Medicine[edit]

I looked closely at the AfD for Allopathic medicine. Every vote before the revert, was Keep. Every vote after your revert was keep. You say it would not have survived. I disagree. I'd like to incorporate some of the newer content back into this article, and move the other, osteopathic-specific content. You suggested it might be more appropriate in Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine, though you did say that article was "sketchy". Any suggestions for improvement? You also mentioned that I provided no references for the usage of allopathic as a non-pejortaive contra-distinction from osteopathic medicine. So I'd like to provide you with some now, from reputable sources.

I understand that many people object to this usage, and I think its important to state that. My point is simply that, while some disagree, the non-pejorative usage is out there. It exists.
References:

American Medical Student Association: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

American Medical Association: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]

New England Journal of Medicine: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

US Department of Health and Human Services: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

Center for Disease Control (CDC): [34] [35] [36]

Johns Hopkins: [37] [38]

Harvard Medical School: [39]

UCSF: [40] [41]

Cleveland Clinic: [42]

Columbia Med: [43] [44]

Yale Med: [45]

World Health Organization: (note usage differs here, seems to contradistinct from all forms of alternative medicine, the phrase "allopathic drugs" is used) [46] [47] [48]

Others: [49] [50]

Touro OsteopathicFreak T 18:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple thoughts from the sideline. I haven't been following your discussion, so forgive me if this is redundant or irrelevant.
If you (OsteopathicFreak) are going to incorporate new stuff, then please merge it (no deletions and no duplications), rather than destroying the work of others, including their references. That's what happened with one of your recent attempts. It got reverted by someone, and the reversion may or may not have been motivated by objections to the content. It could just as well have been an objection to the destruction of existing content.
The pejorative nature of the term is a historical fact (very clearly in Hahnemann's usage), but may indeed be waning among those who are unaware of this fact (AMA usage). So there are many modern mainstream examples of non-pejorative usage, especially in the last 15-20 years. OTOH, the term is clearly used all the time in a very pejorative sense in the alternative medicine world. This pejorative usage may have very little to do with the original motivations or have any ties to it, but are simply a reflection of the extreme antagonism found in the alt med world, where all things authoritarian, mainstream, official, etc.. are suspect and seen as suppressive and in competition with the big money being made in the alt med sector by all kinds of supplement and so-called "natural" product corporations, homeopathic products, and various convicted conmen (like Kevin Trudeau), scammers, and quacks. When these people say it, they are clearly labeling "the enemy," and including MDs, pharmaceuticals, vaccinations, quackbusters, scientific skeptics, the FDA, AMA, ADA, etc.. in their attacks, all of which are considered part of the evil "allopathic" world. I practically live in those trenches and witness this all the time. -- Fyslee/talk 19:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Since my intervention was merely to get the compromise established, I dont see the need to edit the article much further, especially if Fyslee is on the watch.DGG (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review[edit]

I just created a deletion review for Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_19#Category:Jewish_American_comedians. I thought I would alert you to it in case you'd like to comment. --Osbojos 22:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV only if less then a week[edit]

User:BirgitteSB made an interesting sugggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification#Not sure what I think about this proposal in short "{{RFV}} may only be used on articles articles less then a week old." It address many concerns of those opposed. It clarifies that this is tool for encouraging referencing and limits (severely) the potential for misuse. Think about it for a minute then please come and share your thoughts. Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

replied, in brief, that it would violate WP:STUB as currently written. DGG (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Weston Collegiate Institute[edit]

Weston Collegiate Institute has certainly been through quite a ride. While I firmly agree that "no sources" is not a speedy deletion reason, lack of sources after sources have been asked for and a reasonable time given can IMO be a valid reason at AfD or via prod. But the real reason here was non-notability, and the lack of sources is a reason for doubting notability. In any case, i am going to put this on AfD as a challenged prod. Then we'll see what happens. DES (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I decided to do so google searching first, and found a number of sources. i have added several that seem relevant to the article, and i no longer see any reason to put this on AfD. DES (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Actualluy the sources i found were mostly not for the sports stuff, that still has citation needed tags. But there were other items -- take a look. DES (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: speedy of Dept. of Math,...[edit]

I figured it fit in with "group of people" or "company" (or both). AfD is kind of a waste of energy for something like this where notability is not even claimed. I'm replacing the prod and we'll see what happens. Precious Roy 01:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnum house[edit]

It reads so much like a promo piece that I swear it has to have been copied from somewhere, but Google didn't bring me anything...can you CSD with hunches? hbdragon88 replied in some detail on your talk page. DGG (talk)

A little more on certain unreliability example[edit]

The discussion here seems to have died out, but recently I expanded the explanation why this particular book is unreliable. I wonder if you would like to add anything to the noticeboard discussion based on that?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC) I replied there, saying: it can be cited as a direct quote if a brief explanation of his position is included, which can be done as a ref. e.g.The neo-Stalinist [ref] Russian historian Melt. says that " ". I would not use a quote from that book to justify a statement of controverted fact without some qualification, but I see no reason to omit such sources altogether.DGG (talk)

Signs, Signs, Everywhere there's Signs[edit]

You forgot to sign here and I don't wanna leave one of those 'preceding unsigned...' templates because I feel like I am forging something, haha. the_undertow talk 02:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Zvi Block[edit]

Please see User:Rachack/Zvi Block/Links concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zvi Block. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Box Below[edit]

In answer to your question Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estophilia, I have addressed this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Two AFDs Stuck With An Invisible Template That Shouldn't Be There. It had appeared on an afd I created too (though eventually disappeared without explanation). -WarthogDemon 22:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you block vandals?[edit]

Look at the history of my talk page!

The image used was put on my talk page because I had removed it from the UK page- it had also been put there!

Thanks,

Dewarw 23:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The vandal is an IP address, & I will warn, but it may not accomplish much. I can also delete the page from your talk page, by deleting the entire page history and then restoring everything up to that point. Shall I do that? DGG (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I've warned & will block at the next sign of attack, but generally further attacks come from elsewhere. If you see abuse of this sort again, ask me or whatever admin is active, and we can block first and then revert. DGG (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Dewarw 13:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

CSD A3[edit]

About a comment of yours while removing a Speedy Deletion tag, "lists of internal links are not among the things to which A3 applies": Actually, wiki links are not excluded and thus are included by CSD A3. Here is the text: "No content whatsoever. Any article consisting only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections), a rephrasing of the title, and/or attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title. This does not include disambiguation pages." Note that the text has to explicitly mention hyperlinks because wiki links are the basic kind of "links elsewhere" and are implicit to the definition. Hu 23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand my my interpretation that the CSD criterion is not intended to eliminate an article which is a list composed of people or things, each linked to their individual WP pages. Such lists are a standard and well accepted part of WP, and using CSD to delete lists on this grounds is not reasonable. Indeed., list pages are frequently opposed on the opposite ground--that they include items that do not have a WP article & are therefore non-notable. You might want to propose at the VP the elimination of such articles from WP altogether, if you think that is what the community will want. DGG (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:please restore[edit]

I restored the Grine article per your request. - KrakatoaKatie 03:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:sig[edit]

Hello! I hope you are feeling reat. With regards to your concern about my siganture, I feel that it is alright. In fact, you are the first user to complain about the nature of my signature! I had been having my signature for more than one year and there were no complains! --Siva1979Talk to me 03:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletes.[edit]

Re State (governed and nation): I realize that WP:SNOW is not a deletion criterion, but the various other items mentioned are. That page is from a user who is theoretically on their "last warning" for soapboxing repeatedly and has been reported to the Incidents noticeboard before. Plus, he'd removed the prod I'd stuck there earlier, so re-applying a prod seems chancy. If this has to go to AfD, so be it, but I really don't see much point- a speedy deletion is one which indisputably will never be overturned, and if you look at the content to the page, I suspect you'll agree. SnowFire 04:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (left it up to Snowfire to replacet he tag. --DGG)

Dartmouth Crossing[edit]

I agree with you, re. the gallery. Most of the photos are of signage, and aren't even particularly clear. I just didn't want to take on more than I could chew -- I guessed that I would be offending one or two editors who had worked hard on the tenant list, and I didn't want to add insult to injury by removing extraneous photos. I figured the gallery was less hard on the eyes than full-size images along the right side of the page. Skeezix1000 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's a case of my judgment being better than yours. I just didn't want to appear as though I was challenging everything that had been done. I'm glad that someone else raised the image issue, so I was pleased to see your comment. I don't know that there is any benefit to waiting to raise it. Skeezix1000 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Shorens just reverted all of my edits. Your assistance would be welcome. Skeezix1000 22:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Frank Stefanko[edit]

Hello. I see you visited Frank Stefanko a few months ago. I came across the article for the first time yesterday. It was atrocious, but despite the best (?) efforts of its primary author seemed to have something worth saying about "Frank". I tried to improve it, but an IP was not happy. Could you possibly revisit this mess and comment on it? -- Hoary 23:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your username[edit]

Hey, I noticed the note at the top of your userpage. Since User:David Goodman hasn't ever made any edits, I think you can have your username changed (and your edit attributions changed along with) here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I think that may have been me, and I lost the password. But since I seem to be known around here as DGG by now, maybe it's simpler to stay put--though I could still use it in the sig. let me think about it. DGG (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you'd like to do. I just thought I'd bring it to your attention, after I saw you around AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

DGG[edit]

Thanks for prompt reaction, DGG.
That user:Wermania has registered himself purposely, in order to vandalize articles related to Croatian victims of war crimes.
Because of nature of Wermania's vandalism, I propose that he should be blocked.
There was a link, an ICTY material ([Milan Babic - Initial Indictment), that he ignored (on article Saborsko). The article was supplied with images of the mass-grave and monument to victims.
Even worse, while in changes where he added the tags "totally disputed", "verify" was "this article is a propaganda crap... should be deleted" [51] and "speedy|attack page with propagandist title and totally pov content" [52].
Even worse, in this change [53], he adds adjective "alledged" next to the expression "war crime", although ICTY material explicitly [54] describes that war crime. That kind of comment, having in mind all materials supplied (links, images), is a mocking at victims of a war crime.
That kind of behaviour is untolerable, so I find necessary to block user Wermania indefinitely.
Sincerely, Kubura 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, DGG.
User Wermania has repeated his vandal attack on the article Saborsko massacre [55], [56], [57], [58].
He also vandalized the article (page blanking, aimed removing of massacres of Croat population) List of war crimes [59].
He vandalized the article Baćin massacre again [60] (although he got the international source for citation, ICTY!, and he ignorantly inserted the tag "verify"!), then he degrades the massacre into an "incident" [61], and even turns the article into his advocating case [62] and [63]. His "argumentation" on the talkpages were:
- for Saborsko massacre [64] "This article is hopelessly biased and is pure hate speach and croatian propaganda. (Despite ICTY material).
- for Baćin massacre [65], "this is attack page with inapropriate title, autorship of known vandal and croatian anti-serb hate monger. should be deleted imediately." (Despite ICTY material; to find related text, type "Bacin", without diacritics).
In a period of 24 hours, he repeated his attacks. I remind you again, his only contributions are those for editwarring/vandalising of those articles. See his contributions Special:Contributions/Wermania.
Thanks for your attention, Kubura 13:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added few more UN and ICTY links, with some key parts extracted. Can now the (N)POV tag be removed? Thanks for advices, Kubura 08:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, DGG.
User:Wermania has vandalized the page Baćin massacre again.
Here are the links [66] (his comment was: "restoring tags for the hopelessly POV article").
In that change, besides ignoring the references, he also tried to degrade (relativize, minimy, minorify, relativize) the severeness of that war crime. From a massacre to a "incident".
Then he removed the external links (UN.org, BBC, ICTY's sense-agency, even the link to fallingrain.com, geographical site, that showed the position of massacred village!).
Second, he made a redirect [67], from Baćin massacre to "Baćin incident"(comment was: "Baćin incident - the killed civilians were caught in cross fire"). We cannot tolerate such things. He can't ignore UN. Such relativizing isn't far away from relativizing of Auschwitz.
His next change was [68]. He inserted tags "fact", despite that I've given the UN.org (ICTY's page) page as reference. His comment was "tagging dubious statements by vandal Kubura" (when he can't beat someone with arguments, he discredits other users, which is forbidden). That "questionable lines" were mentioned explicitly in the links I gave on the article page (I also repeated those links on the talkpage - and also after his vandalizing).
He repeated his vandalisms in less than a week. I cannot loose my time, just because he's lazy to read/playing dumb/or he doesn't want to read those references at all (all he had to do is open those links and type Ctrl+F, the expressions were the same as in the judgement/indictment).
Wermania is with his behaviour making idiots out of us. We're trying to contribute normally and play according to the rules, which he blatantly ignores (he registered solely for edit-warring!) . We don't have to waste our energy for half a year until some admin finally explodes and finally bans him. Spoiled brat knows no nice words. User Wermania should be kicked out of Wikipedia permanently.
Sincerely, Kubura 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

He also did the same with the article Saborsko massacre [69]. Despite the references (UN.org, ICTY, BBC) that explicitly use the words mentioned in the article, he reinserted the tags "weasel", "totally disputed", "verify".
In short, he deleted the external links, even wrote a POV ("alledged war crime"), although he got the references.
He also vandalized the article Croatia (although UN.org and ICTY deal with the "changed" lines, besides links to Badinteur's Committee).
He also engaged himself in vandalizing of the article Škabrnja massacre. [70].
He also vandalized the article List of war crimes. He removed the rows with the crimes committed against Croats.
As you see in the list of his contributions, in the night of 29th July 2007, Wermania has engaged in vandalizing of articles (and these were his only contributions), from 02:55 to 03:08. Kubura 13:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you deserve this...[edit]

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
Is hereby awarded to DGG for incredible patience, courtesy and wisdom in dealing with deletions and gently explaining to those who mistakenly tag, prod and AfD encyclopedic articles. Long may you participate in XfD :) Paxse 13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Donald MacIntyre[edit]

Perfect. Thanks! Precious Roy 13:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Straw_Poll[edit]

This relates to the text on the placement of footnotes which you helped to work out last month; you may wish to comment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

:)[edit]

I honestly don't know how you keep your cool in some of these discussions - proposals for changing deletion criteria spring to mind - I just read them and steam starts coming out of my ears. I sometimes don't comment because I doubt I can remain civil. Then I read one of your excellent comments and go "Yeah, that's what I wanted to say!" Keep up the good work. Cheers, Paxse 19:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong.See again!213.130.72.22 10:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC) No problems! 213.130.72.22 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Göteröd[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Göteröd, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Göteröd. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical Numerology (2nd nomination)[edit]

It's come to my attention that you incorrectly attributed the latest speedy tag placed on Biblical Numerology to me. This is not the case; I merely restored it. I will not do so again, but I have notified the original user who placed that tag and pointed them to the relevant discussion page. Speaking of that AfD page, I would deeply appreciate a correction from you on that page - I'm a bit protective of my reputation, and to have an admin making incorrect attributions to be could be particularly damaging.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Sidatio 13:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

For the support. Abdelkweli 21:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Allopathic[edit]

Hi,

I appreciate you trying to help me in making the articles on Allopathic medicine better. I do recognize that there is a problem with these pages, and I want to work to make it better. From my point of view, the allopathic medicine article is very problematic, and has major POV issues. It presents a one-sided rendering of the term allopathic and allopath. I've been working to include other points of view on this page. I process which has been met with opposition, despite the fact that I have made a sincere effort to source my information appropriately. I have been personally attacked multiple times in this process, simply for presenting well-sourced information. I don't feel that your reversion of the article was appropriate, while in the middle of an AfD. However, I am a newer editor to Wikipedia and I don't know all of the policies and procedures, but I am making an effort to learn. As I see it, there is a marked bias in the allopathic medicine article specifically, and more generally in all the articles related to medical education, against including any information regarding Osteopathic medicine. The tone of the conversations frequently takes on a very personal quality, very quickly, which makes editing fairly and accurately difficulty. My point is that I am trying to make improvements under difficult circumstances. Examples of this process are, the recent opposition to including Osteopathic medical schools in List of Medical Schools in the United States. The AfD over History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine. The opposition to including any mention of the D.O. degree on the Doctor of medicine page. In each case, a vocal group opposed the inclusion of additional, well-sourced information regarding osteopathic medicine. In each case, after appeal to a wider Wikipedia audience, the changes were kept with overwhelming support for including the additional information. I think most people are unaware that around 25% of all U.S-educated physicians entering residency training today are D.O.s. And that percentage rise every year. Yet, many people have no idea that US physicians can be MDs or DOs. I am hoping that Wikipedia can clarify this situation. I consider the topic of the relationship between the two to be very noteworthy. I will continue to work and talk with other editors to try to make these articles better, i.e. fair, sourced, noteworthy, and neutral. Thanks for your help. Regards. Touro OsteopathicFreak T 22:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the awesome feedback.  :) I'll definitely try to make some changes. I really appreciate it. Touro OsteopathicFreak T 23:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Franz Mandl[edit]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Franz Mandl, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. 68.4.220.10 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As the IP's own boilerplate says, removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process. Since the notice had already been posted and already removed, its reposting was illicit and I therefore re-removed it. -- Hoary 04:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Uber Professorific AfD[edit]

Hi DGG, thanks for a sage suggestion. I was basically going through and evaluating on a case by case basis already, but I'll just stick to assistant and associate profs who don't seem to pass notability (and also, I've tried to note where articles were already tagged, in order to prevent an appearance I'm trying to indiscriminately smash a ton of bios). I really didn't want to make it too much work for anyone else at AfD, hence my concern about the original nominations, so I'll take your advice to try to keep the numbers down. Thanks for contacting the original contributor and for helping me out with this, I really appreciate it! All the best, Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I have now relisted (or delisted) all the articles per your suggestions, and withdrew my nomination for the original article (really, it was the among the best of the bunch). Thanks for your help with all of this. Just let me know if there's anything else I can do, and hopefully the original contributor can be of some assistance too. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
DGG, thank you for all the moral support (whether it was intentional or not)!. I was feeling kind of guilty about the inappropriate mass nomination. But I think you have rightly (and diplomatically) pointed out to the original author the difficult bind he's placed fellow editors in, in trying to deal with the mess. I was afraid someone would assume I had made these nominations in AfD in bad faith or something. And you're putting in a great deal of effort too to get these articles right, both in contacting the author, researching on Google Scholar, and really giving each article the time and attention it deserves. I commend you for all of that. Thank you. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 03:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Moran[edit]

My view is that this page should not be deleted: I believe there's a general consensus that people who run for the leadership of major (or at least credible) political parties are deserving of their own bio pages.

In this case, I believe that the subject decided to add his cv for promotional purposes. I've now reverted the page to an earlier version. CJCurrie 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actively demonstrating non-notability[edit]

I've seen you're very active in the area of notability on Wikipedia. I've asked a question here about actively demonstrating that an article is not notable. I would really value any thoughts or comments you might have.

Many thanks! TreveXtalk 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

he Barnstar of Diligence[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia, especially concerning AFD debates. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Johnathan Rand[edit]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this author meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Could you enlighten me? 24.4.253.249 04:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - now I know what to use when. I was using the lack of a reliable source as a factor when deciding between prod or db; I guess I shouldn't, and just stick with prod. 24.4.253.249 05:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Giggy's RFA[edit]

Just an fyi, but on the second question, the motto came from {{Motd}}. He didn't choose it, the people at WP:MOTTO did. --Dark Falls talk 08:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help mate.[71] --Dark Falls talk 08:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Generations reformatting[edit]

I posted to the Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion#Template:Generations a suggestion to reformat this awful table into a useful navigation box. I'd be interested in your thoughts at the tfd.  ∴ Therefore  talk   12:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

DGG, I know you to be a reasonable editor, and also from our previous discussions someone who is open to helping users who are looking for "non-binary" solutions to deletion debates. I'd like to ask you to take another look at User:Therefore's proposed compromise on the generations template. Check out his proposed navbox -- User:Therefore/Sandbox. His navbox makes it very clear that this is not a "theory" (although I never thought the original template was a theory either) and just something that organizes articles that are on the same topic by chronology. This seems to be me like a very good compromise and a perfectly legitimate use of a template. As a navbox it's much less intrusive. Also, as a broader point, attempt at compromise is something that I think we both agree needs to be encouraged and nurtured at XfD. --JayHenry 20:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
DGG, thanks for taking a look at this. I didn't realize it was part of a broader edit war. I'm sorry if I was unclear on a number of points: for one, this was not my proposal at compromise. This is a compromise proposed by User:Therefore to address the concerns about Template:Generations raised at Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion#Template:Generations. At the discussion you have twice cast your lot for delete, and I thought you were perhaps not reading over the discussion carefully, because you missed the fact that you yourself had already weighed in. Also, please note that Template:Generations is the template about U.S. Generations. Cheers! --JayHenry 03:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC) (discussion still active--DGG)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 16:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Olympic Nat Park River Otter.JPG My RFA
User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer(((Broken clamshellsOtter chirps))) 17:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC about multiple deletions?[edit]

Hi DGG, you had left me a note about opening a discussions on mass-noms at AfD, and I'd be happy to participate if you've created it, or aid in the creation if not yet. Just let me know what I can do. Thanks!! Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 17:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: cateogry: wikipedians who wear the Hijab -- proposed deletion[edit]

sorry for being late to answer you..I don't have any comments about the deletion as long as it doesn't change the box...and thanx for your notice.--Lubna 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Help!![edit]

I am having trouble at British Center for Science education. The newbie who magically appeared to place a speedy on the article has removed my edits to show how notable the subject is, and keeps removing my hangon tags. This is turning into an edit war and a violation of assorted wikiquette etc.--Filll 23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

I've answered your optional question, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy. Thanks, Giggy UCP 23:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

James Madison Square[edit]

Just a heads-up; the prod you placed on this article was removed although nothing substantial has been done by way of improvement. There is another, Statler Square, from the same source that has appeared. I was about to prod it but probably will be treated the same. I will watch. Thanks.--Stormbay 23:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You could add Federated Center to the above. --Stormbay 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Stratford University[edit]

I did find a copyvio. Thanks for the note. GreenJoe 04:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of academic professors[edit]

Thanks for your comments on notability consideration for full time professors in major universities.

For any further articles about those with questionable academic bio, I will not use the very narrow "speedy deletion" tag. Townblight 07:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Red rain in Kerala[edit]

I read through the Astrophysics and Space Science and the New Scientist articles and several follow-up letters in subsequent issues of the latter, and I must admit that the current version of the Red Rain in Kerala is a pretty good summary. I will tweak it a bit, but the article is in ood shape overall. By the way,it's worth noting that the authors dropped the "proto-domain hypothesis" and "replication at 300C" claims from the published version of the paper.
However I didn't didn't the comment that you referenced; the one, "where the editor of the journal goes to an extraordinary degree of distancing himself from it, saying in effect that it was accepted by his coeditor, who has since died.". Can you please relocate the link (just to satisfy my personal curiosity) ? Thanks. Abecedare 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Monroe Parker[edit]

Thanks for the speedy deletion warning on Monroe Parker. I think I added enough new information and citations to warrant removing the warning. I'd be happy to have your comments if you care to look at the page again. All the best, John Foxe 20:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your second look, and I appreciate your offer of help in the future.--John Foxe 10:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Academic bios[edit]

That's excellent advise. Thanks. LaszloWalrus 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Academic bios[edit]

That's excellent advise. Thanks. LaszloWalrus 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • David, thanks for your advice. I generally try to discuss their contribution to their field rather than just their CV's. Capitalistroadster 23:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Lion[edit]

I haven't seen you much on new page patrol, but it's good to see you. :-) Carlossuarez46 03:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs etc as references[edit]

I am wondering about when blogs become useful as references. Some blogs are written by known figures who are notable already from their other writing, or from their qualifications or expertise. Some are associated with people who give their real names and professional positions and credentials. Some science blogs have been highly rated. For example, Nature magazine placed a "review of some of the best blogs written by working scientists" on its website in July 2006.[72][73].

Some examples:

  • Pharyngula (weblog) by PZ Myers, a biologist from the University of Minnesota, science category winner in the 2006 Weblogs Awards
  • Panda's Thumb (weblog), with many professional scientist posters, also highly rated (second place winner?). Almost every poster I have seen on there already has a WP article, and is noted for other writing already. Usually with good sources.
  • talkorigins not a blog exactly, but with many articles written by well-known professional scientists and well-sourced
  • RealClimate, a blog produced by "real climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union"
  • Aetiology, found at [74], written by Tara C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in Iowa
  • scienceblogs, a provider of science blogs includes many interesting and useful blogs [75]. Note that they are selective in who gets to blog, in fact.
  • Nature itself hosts assorted science-related blogs [76]

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?--Filll 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

essentially, i think a review like that of Nature gives authority to the blog. The best way of establishing the authority is to write an article about the blog for Wikipedia. I think this is true in general for any type of sources which not everyone will recognize as notable without an explanation, and I have done so for a few reference sources, and have always intending to do more, including some blogs. Blogs run by magazines are like letters to the editor. Some places screen them very very carefully, some don't. (remembering again to distinguish from the letter to the editor type of short article, as in Nature). Something published in a blog by a recognized authority is an easy case--regardless of where she publishes it, she gives it authority. But remember to be fair about this--some blogs by those with whom we do not agree are also responsible.
so I encourage you to write some articles about blogs. Let me know & I'll look at them. DGG (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again ![edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triclavianism (2nd nomination)--Filll 04:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's really nothing personal, I assure you, it's just I never really thought any of the keep arguments were any good even when the first AfD ended, and I still don't understand how any of them hold up now. Homestarmy 04:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Young man, you need to learn a bit about scholarship and culture. My goodness. Help us improve this article, just don't complain about it. This is a fascinating bit of interesting history and culture that enriches us all, and makes WP the special place that it is. Just deleting it because you do not get it, or you think it is too obscure or somehow embarasssing or whatever just is silly. Leave it there. It is not hurting anyone. Put some effort into improving it, not tearing this sort of stuff down.--Filll 04:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Filll, my friend, my oldest friend on WP in fact, this isn't the way to discuss it. As for me, I'm going to respond at the AfD. On the actual merits of the article. DGG (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok I am suitably reproached. However, HS and I have a looooong history of "bavardation". So I do not mean this at all harshly. In fact, far more with a wink and tongue in cheek. But I suppose it might look bad...--Filll 06:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your common sense, guidance, and sensible suggestions to my articles, I award you this Barnstar. Mrprada911 05:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing I like about WP[edit]

Is that it's great for insomniacs (me, too). Carlossuarez46 05:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC) vandals never sleep! Kl4m 06:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re : speedy=[edit]

speedy as non notable is only for articles where no importance is asserted. If you think the importance isnt sufficient for WP, then its a question for AfD--or Prod if you think it wont be defended. Any reasonable claim is enough to prevent a speedy

Thanks, I welcome comments to improve my editing. I'm new to editing WP, apart from fixing typos anonymously over the years. Could you tell me which edit in particular this comment was about? Thank you. Kl4m 06:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

give a look here[edit]

i saw your vote, i wish to first discuss with keep people of that perticular afd, whom i saw elsewhere. User_talk:Alison#shemale_afd Lara_bran

Require discussion before deletion[edit]

I see you support notification for AfD, but oppose posting to the talk page because of complication. I saw notification as complicated, and using talk as a simpler first step. Is it really a significant hardship to post a draft version of the AfD nomination at the talk page first, then check back to see what comments it receives? This will give the nominator a chance to reconsider or reformulate the AfD nomination, which should improve the quality of AfD's. Dhaluza 10:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am considering alternative proposals, and would like to get some feedback from you. Dhaluza 09:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hotel speedy deletions[edit]

Hello DGG. I speedied those who met the criteria for speedy deletion. G11 is for articles who would need to be rewritten from scratch and these were in that category. In particular many were the work of spammer Slim2006 (talk · contribs) and were simply unacceptable. Pascal.Tesson 11:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

that they need to be rewritten from scratch is an imprecise criterion, and once something is at AfD, the best course is to leave it there--if others agree with you, it will be deleted soon enough. The proper use of the criterion is to eliminate things from AfD altogether to save the work and overhead, but once something is at AfD, the overhead is just the same whether it is closed as a speedy or not. The afd must still be closed. The only work saved is in others not having to consider it--but if it is that bad, they'll take one look & say delete, & this is overbalanced by the lack of transparency to non-admins.
I further think there is good reason to disagree on some of them, and, since I am an admin, I can see that some are even probably or possibly notable:
Shangri-La Hotel Bangkok cites a number of awards, including "The Best of the Best and Top 50 Asia Hotels, Conde Nast Traveler (USA)", and "One of the Top 100 Hotels Worldwide and Top 20 Hotels in Asia, Travel + Leisure (USA)" You closed discussion before anyone had a chance to mention that--and it completely negates A7--a claim of awards from an internationally known publication is a bona fide claim to notability. Agreed, the distinctiveness of their awards might be debatable--and so it would be appropriate to have it debated.
Pudong Shangri-La, Shanghai " largest deluxe hotel in Shanghai and the largest of Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts' 48 properties." -- 10 awards. All the more so in this case, "largest" has often been accepted as notable, & the awards include 2 from Conde Nast.

Some are not notable, but I think they could have been rewritten to an acceptable stub:

some: Grand Mercure Puka Park Resort,  Traders Hotel, Kunshan  , Traders Hotel, Dubai, and city Garden Hotel';

The dubious nature of some of these, and the clear keep consensus that other have, would make any one doubt the care taken in the choice of the individual hotels in the nominations, and I think you were insufficiently discriminating in what you did. I know that in other subjects you think very few notable, and perhaps you are expressing your own concept of notability here. As an admin, I know I have a higher bar than the consensus on some things, and I refrain from speedying them. (Similarly, when I know I have a lower bar, or even where the bar is just disputable, I do not use admin powers to keep, & just debate like I did before I was an admin.) DGG (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree on this one. I maintain that slim2006 (talk · contribs) is a spammer for Shangri-La Hotels. I deleted the articles where he was the sole significant contributor and where the tone was blatantly promotional. This is of course in line with policy but more importantly I think it makes perfect sense to discourage spam. If you feel like creating articles for these hotels, please go ahead: none of these are protected against recreation. You're an experienced editor: you can probably research which can lead to articles which don't violate the spirit of WP:NOT#TRAVEL and you know how to write these based on solid third-party material. Pascal.Tesson 20:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I will not undelete the articles because they would need to be rewritten from scratch to even come close to our standards for neutrality and encyclopedic value. But if an editor independent of Shangri-La Hotels wants to come along and recreate articles on this topic, then so be it. Pascal.Tesson 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

British Centre for Science Education[edit]

DGG, I notice your interest in the page British_Centre_for_Science_Education. There's some outrageous behaviour going over there now. A member of the org has deleted critical material about himself, and is being assisted by an editor. Read the discussion on the talk page to judge for yourself. Spubert 22:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Interesting.--Filll 22:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
i'm there, and will deal with what needs to be dealt with. Filll, I always check for myself. DGG (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that as a prudent course of action.--Filll 23:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your intervention on this DGG - I believe that your solution, to remove the material in question but retain a reference to BCSE critics is perfectly fair, and avoids sinking into personal attacks. Greatly appreciated. (IanLowe 10:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

My response[edit]

I don't think we were working at cross purposes at all. As a rather new admin, I am still stepping rather gingerly around contentious issues. I was hoping to lead the editors involved into resolving this with the same outcome that you have brought about, so I think it is more of a situation based on different paths to the same end. Thanks for getting involved!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Hi, DGG, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy UCP 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

re:shemale[edit]

But they changed article during afd to show that term is used only for derogatory purpose, and put real meaning in brackets. True it takes effort, but im rewriting article, maybe in a month or two, but currently not including in redirected article. Shemale means a human with male primary sex characteristic and female secondary sex characteristics. Thanks for suggestion. Lara_bran 07:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure i would ask you for a look. Thanks. Lara_bran 11:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For your consideration: A description of a science blog[edit]

Please take a look at my draft of an article on the science blog Aetiology, which appears here. Thank you.--Filll 16:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have slowly improved this draft a bit and also, at your suggestion, started a draft on the author of this blog at User talk:Filll/Tara C. Smith. I think I am getting close to showing she is notable, but you tell me what you think.--Filll 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Smith has published 3 books, and taught at 4 different Universities, and has several journal publications as well. Smith organized the Iowa Citizens for Science (with a few dozen members), and been engaged in lobbying and organizing public Darwn events (1 so far, another upcoming in 2008), and an article about her activities in this area has been in the Des Moines Register. I think she is well on her way to notability, if she is not there already.
Her blog is rated number 7 in science from Nature, out of 46 million blogs evaluated. I count 4 print mentions (including in Cell (journal) and 5 cyberspace media articles about Aetiology (in addition to just 1000s of general blogosphere discussions on other blogs). Notable?--Filll 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

André_Éric_Létourneau[edit]

Please do not remove deletion tags without providing an explanation, as you just did to André_Éric_Létourneau which fails to establish notablility, and appears to be promotional. Thanks, Doctormatt 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. No, the edit summary did not include an explanation: all it said was "-tag". Perhaps in such instances you should make your admin status more apparent. Cheers, Doctormatt 19:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (I see I hadn't. My apologies--DGG)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Ah. I see what happened. I had the What links here speeedy deletion page for CSD A7 open, and I saw a strange article in there, and while believing it was speedyable, as a possible company advertisement, as first indicated by User:Spartytime, I simply reverted back to this notice (though not this revision) and proceeded from there.

If you feel something like {{db-advert}} or similar would be more useful, please feel free to insert this in the article, unless you feel it can be overhauled. Thank you. Bobo. 19:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Artist's Row[edit]

Oops, thought Artist's Row was a small company on the street. My bad. Thanks! -WarthogDemon 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well and decided to prod the pages that seem to assert some historical importance and suggested merging the others with Augusta, Georgia. Hope that's okay. -WarthogDemon 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, wait. Atlanta? This is Augusta we're speaking of, which has no downtown article. -WarthogDemon 20:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No sweat. :) Actually took me a while to even notice you were talking Atlanta. At any rate, if you think you messed up badly here, check out: [77]. :) -WarthogDemon 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Speedies[edit]

I'm sorry, I'm new to delete templates and only use speedy because I can't find the normal deletion template. SpartytimeTalkMy Wikia 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Schools[edit]

Re. speedy deletion of schools. Sorry! I must have made a mistake. I try to add school-stub to the new and short school articles. Thanks for letting me know. KMS 22:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! KMS 23:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)