User talk:DGG/Archive 82 Nov. 2013

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

David Game College

I was browsing around to find something reliable, and ran into David Game College Group (a terrible article). So we have (something) already. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

missed it, I'm proposing a merge for now. This will need some work, for it seems like they are not all the same sort of institutions DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I ran into it by chance, via Google. I'm not sure I know what a "college group" is. Have a great weekend, David--I'm a bit jealous of your hanging around New York. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I think it means a corporate group owning these various institutions. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi DGG

can you provide me with a copy of RIDC now? Thanks. It would be a better encyclopedia if you discussed an editors concerns on the talk page after tagging. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

another admin has already moved it, to User:Marketdiamond/RIDC. I have given you some advice in connection with it on your user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Saturday's Village MeetUp

Will you be at the Jeffeson Market MeetUp this Saturday? I've made a little progress on the Trolley pic project and wanted to speak to you about it. Thanks. LoreMariano (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I will be there, though not necessarily as early as 10AM. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS Question

In regards to this page move where you use the summary "MOS", presumably a reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, could you help cure my ignorance as to why it is inappropriate to use a period following an abbreviated name? The reason I am asking is that I am unable to locate this where this directive is located in the Manual of Style. It also appears to contract the information located at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Full stops. --Allen3 ^talk 01:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the style with periods, but I was distinctly told recently there was a decision to do middle initials in names without periods. There are many possible location for a rule on this, and the closest I can find is what you found also, "A period is more usual in North American usage (Dr. Smith of 42 Drummond St.); no period is commonly preferred in British and other usage (Dr Smith of 42 Drummond St)." As both individual of that name were Americans, that would make the proper form with the period.

But that I cannot find something in WP discussions does not show it isn't there, and if anyone knows of a current discussion I'd like to know. This is not the sort of thing I get into an argument about--I just try to follow what seems to be the accepted way without concerning myself much about it, and anyone who thinks otherwise about such things is welcome to change it. DGG ( talk ) 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The block proposal

As one of the few adult respected editors to oppose the consensus for blocking proposal (I agree it wasn't presented there optimally), I am curious to hear your opinion on User_talk:SandyGeorgia/arch95#June_2013. Why, of course we judge established and all editors "on the basis of their work and their behavior" ... and expect them to "know how not to get themselves into situations where they might get blocked", but those of us who have been around longer are more likely to have attracted fans who will push the block button for no reason at all, with no warning, with no discussion, with no basis. When challenged, they can remove the block as quickly as they placed it (with a false edit summary), and not have to face the music at ANI (and I doubt that many editors are as fortunate as I to have an arb in there immediately, indeed, the block was lifted before I was even online or aware of it, but it was lifted with a false edit summary). It can happen to anyone. Of course admins shouldn't be placing blocks that wouldn't gain consensus from anyone anywhere anytime. But the fact is they do. This proposal is not to enable folks to go around saying F and C; it's to stop the cowboy admins. It happened to me once-- it has happened to Eric enough times that he just doesn't care anymore. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If he doesn't care any more, either he should start caring and change the way he engages in discussion, or there's no place for him in a group project. I consider your suggestion pure discrimination. It justifies all that has been said of admins & established users protecting each other. It's unfair to newcomers, and it's even unjust to established editors by not holding them to the standards they are capable of. If there are cowboy administrators, they're the ones we need to deal with. I work mainly with new articles, and I have seen people too quick to block in that situation; a few of them are wikifriends, and I think I've persuaded at least one of them to change the way they use blocking.

The reason I do not myself do what I say we ought to do, which is enforce NPA strictly with respect to established editors, and deal with gross impoliteness by established editors--which I consider an attack upon the community at large, just as if it were a newly arrived vandal, is that I don't want to spend my time here fighting endlessly with other users. But it ought to be done, and I give my admiration to the people who have tried to do it. Most of them have given up, and your proposal wants to institutionalize their failure and make it policy.

I do not know either you or he personally, nor most of the other people in the discussion. Bur perhaps I can to some degree sympathize with your viewpoint--it's just the same as the way I get annoyed at the policemen who enforce the speeding rules when I am speeding a little. But if we didn't have them, the reckless drivers would make the road impossible for ordinary people.

It is even from your own POV better not to enact this. It is true that the ability to punish other people is a temptation to self-righteouness and hypocrisy, When a individual does this, the rest of us can correct them. The way we have of ganging up on people at AN/I and elsewhere is worse, for nobody can withstand it. Having a group do punishment will not be constructive. At present, someone unjustly blocked can be angry at the individual who blocked them; with your proposed rule, everything escalates immediately to the community, and the person on the receiving end unless they are a fool will simply leave WP rather than suffer it. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

But you see, this is what happens each time the discussion comes up. People see Eric's Fs and Cs and think that is all that is involved. No, there is more. An admin can do it to me, too, or to anyone, with no Fs or Cs or any reason whatsoever, and know that by removing the block quickly and lodging a faulty reason, that will stay on record. I am not sure this proposal (if properly reworked) will result in "everything escalat(ing) immediately", in fact, the hope is it will do the opposite-- that is, admins who know they are making controversial blocks will stop doing it. Perhaps I'm naïve. But I'm fairly sure that admin abuse results in more lost editors, and most lost productive editors and productive editor time, than the F and C scuffles do. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the one time it happened to you was in a question involving sockpuppet accusations, & was removed immediately; the only person who was really harmed by this was the one who placed the block, for it will not be forgotten. This has been a difficult area, with worse things both happening and threatened to good people. The direct contradiction between user policy and privacy policy is the problem here, not the action of individuals, and this will not be solved till one or another policy bends considerably.

What the proposal is saying , to continue my analogy, is that to prevent unreasonable penalties for speeding, we should not stop speeders until the police force has all agreed it; the correct approach combines an avenue of appeal, sanctions on the worst-judging enforcers, and recording of police stops for later scrutiny. We have all three. Your case is an example of the system working.

But with respect to the case that evoked this proposal: People are rationally bothered by such language here because they see it as the hallmark of abusive feelings and interactions, not just words. In most environments people don't talk that way unless they intend to provoke a fight, or show they're so tough they don't care whether or not they do. I see it as bullying, and I see the proposal as giving virtual immunity to the bully.

In a more general sense, this is not merely an environment where we build an encyclopedia, but an environment where we work together to build an encyclopedia. The only people who should be working here are those who can do positive work in a cooperative way. The difficulty in attaining this is the traditional toleration of those who cannot cooperate; we are indeed open to those who may not be able to work effectively in other setting, but when we are be open to those who antagonize others in this setting, then those others who find it intolerable will not come and contribute. I think this is a much greater number, and we need them. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to understand your reasoning (and how strongly you feel about it), because when reasonable seasoned editors like you oppose block reform, I know there's no chance. I agree that the blocker in my case did more harm to himself than to me, which is one of the reasons it doesn't bother me the way it does Eric, but that is not to say it has done no harm to me. First, as has happened to Eric, others will use the block log to justify future blocks, without investigation. Second, and more importantly, my ability to explain policy to new(ish) medical editors is hampered by them seeing a block log. The system has worked in one sense (folks in the know can see what was done to me), but that doesn't help when I'm dealing with new editors who are pushing POV, misusing sources, whatever, and they see me as an editor not to be taken seriously because I have a block log. And then there's the issue that I see so much worse abuse that is tolerated every day, as long as the abusers avoid profanity. Anyway, that's life on the internet! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• I stumbled on this even though I wasn't pinged. Please note that it was I who exhumed Drmies' proposal, not SandyGeorgia; I'm grateful for her coming to the defence of the spirit in which it was offered, but I'm the one you should rightly excoriate :-) I believe you're assuming that everyone shares the view that certain words are unacceptable. That may be an objective metric in one sense, but it isn't in another - there will be disagreement even as to the words (for example the person who argued that "bugger off" would not have been profanity; and what about blasphemy?) I agree with Sandy that we have a problem also with abuse that avoids profanity, and I'd like to put it to you that it's not good for the encyclopedia to have a standard for incivility that defines it so narrowly; it's a misleading economy that will disadvantage some in the community (certain regional language communities and perhaps more importantly, those who in discussions write closer to how they would speak) while also allowing some forms of incivility. That's why I wanted another look at a consensus-driven process. Thanks for thinking about it. I'm not much of a politician, but it's me you should rightly argue with about this if you wish. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Replying: (1) My feelings on bad language are irrelevant. Many people are bothered. This is a community project, and to provide a welcoming environment not conducive to abuse, we must take the feelings of the more sensitive into account. When working with others, one avoids annoying them, and talks in a way acceptable to everyone present. , I regard this as so basic to a civilized environment anywhere that I have always been amazed anyone here things otherwise. It's pure arrogance to use what some present consider rude language. It's saying, it doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you. There's a basic level in our society though there are settings where one can go outside the bounds. A workplace is not one of them. We have rules about this at WP meetings, and they should apply here also. (2)I agree that focussing on specific words is not the optimum approach. But here we have a case of someone consistently using language which they must know is not considered acceptable to many people here. Such people, if they can not change, poison the environment. (3) There are two issues here that have gotten confused:, first, whether a particular individual should receive a block, and second, what our general blocking policy ought to be. My amazement at the language often used here remains amazement, but to avoid frustration I do not comment on it except in extreme cases. I regard this as an extreme case, but views may differ. The second much more =fundamental question is whether experienced editors are to be privileged here in their behavior, or whether whatever policies we do have apply to everyone equally. The proposal to enforce the rules differently of different members of the community is what horrifies me. We should have a reasonable amount of tolerance for everybody, and use discretion in dealing with them. Admins whop do not show good judgement can indeed be our problem, but this applies to their dealing with everyone, not just the established users. It's those admins we need to deal with, but wee have no good way of dealing with this. I myself avoid bringing what I consider abuse to ANB, because experience shows it doesn't usually make things better. Working with individuals once one has gotten to know them does sometimes help. The worst possible way to deal with the problem is to let them continue to abuse the defenseless newcomers, but make it harder to censure the experienced. It produces a system hostile to newcomers, and the survival of WP depends on attracting them, for none of us will be here forever. DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more (apologies for butting in here, David). Incivility and personal attacks, especially when accompanied by profanity which significant portions of the population at large and many editors here find offensive, is even more inexcusable in people who pride themselves on and frequently remind everyone of their "content" skills. Everyone has a choice about which language to use, especially people who are highly articulate, educated and in command of multiple registers of their native language. They know exactly what they're doing and why. Insulting someone and/or using coarse language to do it is a choice. Being aggressive, confrontational, and belittling is a choice. Being an apologist for such behaviour in others because they write FAs is a choice. It's time to stop making those choices. But I'm not holding out a lot of hope. Voceditenore (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, since my point was missed, I'll restate it. I can't speak for others, but I am not an apologist for potty mouth, and certainly not because one writes FAs (we have some really disruptive editors who happen to write FAs, and they are well versed in disrupting without using profanity, but I digress). I do wish that whenever the discussion of abusive admins comes up, people would stop misreading it as a) protection because of content writing, or b) a defense of profanity while overlooking 1) that many editors routinely get away with far worse simply because they don't use profanity, and 2) those editors have a much worse effect on content contribution, and 3) they often are or are protected by abusive admins. I do think that because of the language Eric uses, he has made it more difficult to address the broader global problem, because editors make simple-minded, black-and-white distinctions and focus on the profanity rather than the other issues. My concern is that we cannot even hold the discussion without people seeing it in black-and-white terms, reducing the argument to who used F or C, while overlooking the much worse issues that go on among those who get away with it by avoiding profanity. It's time to stop mischaracterizing those who want to address the global problems, and believing that the "camps" are divided into FA writers vs others; the concern is the double standard and the far worse behaviors that are endorsed, tolerated and accepted simply because no Fs or Cs are involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't miss your point. I simply don't agree with it. Nor am I making a "simple minded distinction". I've seen plenty of abusive, aggressive language from Corbett towards other editors without him using profanity. That is also inexcusable, but combining that kind of abuse with profanity is the sociolinguistic equivalent of a punch in the face, and no amount of minimizing rhetoric, e.g. referring to it as "potty-mouth", changes that. Would he say what he says here to the face of a total stranger who was annoying him, especially if that person were bigger, stronger, and meaner? No. Why does he do it to total strangers here? Because he can get away with it, treats his blocks like badges of honour, and is inevitably rewarded with people flocking to his talk page to point out what wonderful prose he writes. The fact that "abusive admins" exist does not excuse "abusive editors". As long as you continue to conflate the two issues into what you call a "global problem", nothing will change, neither problem will be solved, and you will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as condoning the toxic environment that abusive editors produce, provided of course that they're "established editors", but I've taken up enough of David's talk page as it is. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, I wanted to bring this to your attention, since you had previously commented on the article. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

RIDC

An editor has listed this article at DRV, which you had a hand in the deletion of, in case you care to comment there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance Marketing for Professionals

You take a measured approach to paid editing. I can't recall how this editor came to my attention, but I'm pretty sure there's a problem there. And an IP on my talk page is pointing towards others. Any advice on to what, if anything, to do about these? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing Page Protection for article: "Muumuu House"

Hi David,

I would like to ask that you remove the page protection for the Article Muumuu House which is currently listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muumuu House and which you salted. This article seems to have had some problems with sockpuppeting, but I would like to write the article using proper references and citation. I believe that this article does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements OR drohowa (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned you at

WP:ANI#3 more paid editors?. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

yes indeed. I'm trying to follow up on all their articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Muumuu House

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Muumuu House. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. OR drohowa (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

== Craig Keeland ==

Hi DGG, if you don't mind, I'd like your thoughts on how to improve the Craig Keeland article so that it isn't promotional. Thanks, HtownCat (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it will be worth the trouble, because I don't think the article will pass AfD for lack of notability. But the way to at least make a better impression is to start by removing the overuse of his name. A good substitute is "He". Then write it in multi-sentence paragraphs, like an encyclopedia article, not isolated sentences like a press release. Don;' make a separate section for each of bis businesses: "Business career" will do fine. Don't try to dignify a $10,000 contribution by calling it "philanthropy" If Pauling is involved with his company document it from a reliable source--not a press releases in the local paper. And celebrity endorsements don;t belong in WP. I'll hold off nominating it for AfD for a day or two to give it a chance. But I suggest the best course is to withdraw the article, which you can facilitate by placing at the top a line reading : {{db-author}}. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, I've been working on this article. Do you mind giving feedback on its progress? HtownCat (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is not just the links, but the fundamental content seems intended to promote him and his company. I';e listed it for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand how it's promotional. It's written neutrally and everything is cited. Can you give me a specific example? HtownCat (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Craig Lancaster

There's also Mkfrench/Craig Lancaster that I csd tagged....William 21:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks. I've now deleted both, . DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

1st of all I want you to know that I'm really frustrated. I'm genuinely trying, for my first time, to create a page (I thought that was the point of Wikipedia?) I crafted the article first on the advice of my friend (not the author, someone else who has experience with Wiki pages, put my references in parenthesis as he suggested, and then set about learning how to use my "sandbox," insert the proper code, and edit. I didn't put my references in immediately for that reason...I was in the process of adding them with the proper code when my page was deleted. This was all within the first couple of hours of me even creating an account. The content was not spam. I am a fan of the author I was writing the page about and was simply using his bio as a good starting place for my first article. I was obviously mistaken as I didn't even know how to create a subpage yet, that's why it was underneath my username first. In fact, I was in the process of learning how to insert a hasty deletion tag, or whatever they are called, when I went back to do it my subpage was deleted....NOT VERY WELCOMING. --Mkfrench (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:AUTHOR. Because someone is a published author, that doesn't make them notable enough for a wikipedia article. The person has to meet the criteria and his website isn't a source. I'm a published author, have written for Newsweek, have my own blog. None of which make me meet the AUTHOR criteria....William 22:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you had given me a chance to put in my sources, you would have seen that I DIDN'T use his website for ANY of my references...that's why I think you could have at least waited to let me get them in there. Also, He has several published works. I see LOTS of other regional authors on wiki. Why was this page so hastily deleted???? Also, seems like you're a little personally biased based on your own experiences. The only time I put his website in the article was the External Link Section, which is where it goes, according to the rules I've been reading. --Mkfrench (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Please give us a chance to respond. Although I am here a substantial part of the day, I do get up from the computer occasionally; most other people do also.
• If you want, I will restore the page to your user space if you want to work on it further, & there is in fact a possibility of an article. ( though I suggest you use the WP:AFC process, where others will review it) The underlying problem is that we very rarely are willing to consider the author of self-published books as a notable author, unless the book are clearly notable with substantial 3rd party independent reviews (not blurbs, and not published only on amazon or other web sites which accept reader content) and significant library holdings. We are also not normally willing to accept local news sources for the notability of books, as they tend to indiscriminately review all local authors. Local awards are also not usually accepted for notability. Rereading this article, it is possible that The summer sun might have a reasonable number of library holdings, and the Independent Publishers Award might be significant enough. On the assumption that the symbols in the article indicate places where you intend to add references, it seems possible that the necessary importance might be able to be demonstrated, so I think you do need a chance to show it. For adding references, I suggest you enable the gadget ProveIt on your user preferences page; it make it emuch easier to put in the required fields. Try to add references to the print as well as online version when they exist.

If you'd like me to check after you have expanded the article, let me know. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

DGG Thank you for taking the time to read it. Apologies for the quick succession of missives. As a first time editor, I was very frustrated. Yes please do restore it to my user page and I will add my references. --Mkfrench (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. For technical reasons due to a bug it was necessary to restore the userspace version, not the mainspace version. I realize you did additional work on the mainspace version, and I will restore it if it is feasible. Add also the library holding fromWorldCat , and, as footnotes, whatever published reviews you can find, You realize that no matter how hood I may think it is, anyone else may choose to send it to AfD .for a community decision DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Does WP:AFCH always add a Persondata template?

Does WP:AFCH always add a Persondata section to the article being created? Because many times you submit / create an article, and there is already a Persondata section present. So the AFCH adds a second, blank Persondata, and then I clean it up via Category:Persondata templates without name parameter. Not sure if there's any way around this, just wanted to give a head's up. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 21:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what AFCH does exactly, and based on what I have seen, no error would surprise me. Everything that goes through it can be assumed to need extensive manual cleanup. At this point, due to the panic over the backlog, I'm just trying to rescue what could make articles. WP relies upon the idea that everything will get fixed eventually by someone--and I want to encourage you to do it , for such work is very valuable & badly needed. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Aston (born 1480)

I do not think that this edit should have been made because the concerns field has not been filed out (as far as I can tell this is not a prerequisite). If you had looked at the talk page you would have seen what the concerns are, or, as an experienced editor, if you had read the contents of the article, the reasons would be obvious. So as not to make other editors jump through hoops please revert the last edit I made to the page (If you do that then the "concerns" field will be filled). -- PBS (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I could have been more explicit: Your rationale in the prod2 is wrong; the article does not say he was created baronet in 1628. I agree Baronets are not considered automatically notable here , but not only is that irrelevant to whether any particular baronet is, but it is wholly irrelevant, because apparently he wasn't a baronet. (According to the source, , no. 17 onp.110 refers to the Thomas Aston created baronet in 1628; the subject of this article is no.13 on p.197 ) Your second reason, added subsequently, was not one reliable source, not notable. I agree the source given is not wholly reliable, but it is a source. On the other hand, he probably is not notable by our standards, Since I do not think it will possibly survive AfD, I'm deleting it as an expired prod. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Model" page for Trolley

Hi. Can you point me to the link for the "model" trolley page? Thank you. LoreMariano (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'm ready to go but I need help from someone who can assist with the scanning and guide me as to best practices---naming convention; resolution; etc. Can you give me the name(s) of the person(s) you thought we could ask. LoreMariano (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking about who--I'll get back to you in a day or so if someone else doesn't answer here & volunteer. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Did I understand you correctly...the ideal is to have a wiki page created for every trolley? I'm thinking it may be easier to create the pages as we scan the negatives. Maybe I can get someone from ERA (Electric Railroaders' Association) to help with the page content. We were thinking of scanning in batches of 20. ERA will FedEx me 20; when I finish that batch, I FedEx them back and get the next one, and so on. Most are from the mid to late 1940s. It would be great if we could create a template (or info box) to standardize the process. LoreMariano (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As an example of the level of detail we use for locomotives, see GWR Caesar Class. or List of British Rail Class 91 locomotives Each individual one made is listed, but the article is for the class. Particularly important individual ones do have articles, e.g. GWR Thunderer locomotive. As a closer example, for trams, see Škoda 03 T and compare with the much lesser amount of detail in SEPTA PCC II. See Siemens_S70 for an example of how many pictures we'd usually put in an article.

For Commons, the situation is be different. They will probably accept a picture of every individual trolly car (though they call them trams) , and the most relevant category list there is this Scrolling down, the cities that has been done most thoroughly are Brno & Prague--see the list for Bruno and the list for Prague; for comparison, there's the disgracefully sparse list for North America.

These will give you an idea of how they are categorized. by city, by transit company, by manufacturer. I see most are exterior shots--some interiors would also be good. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Reward board ==

You might wanna see Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board#As_we_are_going_to_keep_this.2C_do_we_need_to_tighten_the_criteria_a_bit.3F - Sven Manguard and I started this simultaneously post the MfD (which was also another reason to bring up combining delete/merge/etc again I guess but that can wait as I am a bit short up for time currently..). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

if we can remove the cash, great. Otherwise, my current personal preference for a course of action is waiting 6 months and then MfD2. I considered DelRev asking for non-consensus leading to an immediate MfD, but I am too busy now rescuing AfCs to do much else. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That whole bit was very confusing to me. There was consensus to delete the page that involved donations to a charitable cause, but support to keep the one that involved payment directly to editors? Very strange. CorporateM (Talk) 16:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Pad site et al.

Don't automatically assume that I didn't pull a WP:BEFORE. I did look for sources on everything I just prodded that you deprodded, and came up empty handed. I think it's actually rather rude of you to assume that I didn't bother looking for sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not assume, but neither do you state. There have been AfDs where others find references, and AfDs where they do not--you are frequently but not always justified. But much more importantly, I see no indication that you ever consider the possibility of merge or redirect, which are always preferred to deletion. I challenge as many deletion listings as I can where a redirect or merge seems possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your revert of my tag

I have so many Farsi reliable sources, stating that man is a fraud, http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2012/01/29/israeli-intelligence-pimps-discredited-iranian-dissident-peddling-regime-change-by-another-name/ Translation of one interview . It's not POV or COI. Danger^Mouse (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You may well be right. i cannot tell without an extensive analysis of the sources. Bu the question is nonetheless subject to dispute, and will not be solved by deleting the article. If discussion on the talk page does not reach agreement on a text, I would suggest taking it to the NPOV or BLP noticeboard DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of proving my point on the talkpage of the article, and tagging it for POV, or editing the article, after all we have fraud's bio, on Wikipedia. Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the right place to discuss it. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Biography: Mabel R. Hokin

Thanks much for the tips, DGG! I'll tone down the personal aspects of the bio, and make it shorter and more accomplishment oriented, rather than a "tribute", which I agree it veers toward. Maybe cite one or two more key articles and reviews. I do hope I can keep the mention of her being blacklisted from entry into the US during the McCarthy era, because that sort of thing is of historical interest and should be preserved in Wikipedia. It wasn't only famous scientists like Oppenheimer whose careers were affected by the anti-communist fervor of that time. It had a debilitating effect over all of science. But I can drop the other personal stuff. It's hard to write a conforming bio of a scientist that did important work, but stayed out of the limelight in a field that didn't get huge until late in her career when technology caught up. There's very little other than articles that she wrote, and the 1996 symposium in her (and Lowell's) honor is totally undocumented (which is shameful). All I've got is photos of her with colleagues. But I certainly think Mabel Hokin deserves a Wikipedia entry when any random NFL football player or porn star gets one. I'll make it better. :) Sammyjava (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

the main things we need to increase our coverage in these areas is to have more people interested in writing articles, so I appreciate your persistence. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewrote Craig Keeland

After you nominated the Craig Keeland article for deletion, I spent a lot of time researching and rewriting the article. The former one has been scrapped completely. I hope it complies with Wikipedia standards now and I hope that my future articles do as well.

I'm going to go to the AfD and vote Keep. Is there anything else I should do now? Can the advertisement (and maybe notability) tags be deleted?

Thanks for your patience. It's been a learning experience. HtownCat (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could say better, but it still isn;t ready. I think the fundamental problem is that the notability is so very borderline. There seems northing substantial except the formation of Youngevity and an article might be possible about that company. The reason why that firm might be notable is that it did get some of its prodiucts listed on PDR-Non Prescription drugs.

You might want to gain experience working on subjects that are certain to be notable--like NYSE companies, or people with national level awards DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bill/William Still

Hallo David, On the tenuous grounds that you commented on the first of three AfDs for Bill Still (the most recent was April 2013), could you have a look at William T. Still? Either (a) it needs to be moved to the title "Bill Still", or (b) it needs to be deleted, but it shouldn't be sitting there at the less common version of his name. I'm neutral about the man, just fussy about redirects etc. At present I can't even create a redirect from Bill to the current stub (salted, presumably). What do you think? PamD 09:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It very much resembles the originally created article at the first afd, and does not meet the objections there or at the two subsequent afds, I have therefore listed it for speedy delete as G4, recreation. If it does get deleted, it should be protected--this is the 5th attempt. If the speedy is declined, I will take it to AfD, where it will undoubtedly be deleted. The namechange is because the title was salted--its just an evasion of the salting. DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express

Since user:Arri at Suburban Express is already blocked, is there anything we should do about them harassing and outing other editors off-wiki? They appear to have published information about user:NegativeVoid's real name and place of residence[1] as well as made other off-wiki harassment posts.[2], however in my opinion it's just a continuation of their spat and not relevant to Wikipedia. Awful yes, but not for us to deal with.

I don't completely agree with user:SlimVirgin's edits under BLP rules, but I figure we can wait until all the COIs lose interest (we can hope). Have you encountered similar articles like this before? CorporateM (Talk) 15:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The outing will probably result in nobody ever being willing to unblock. See the current signpost for a relevant arb com decision.

You commented on the article talk page that I am one of those who think BLP has less complete consensus than some attribute to it. I would not word it that way: The basic BLP policy has essentially complete consensus; the disagreements are over a few particular areas, and over matters of interpretation. I don't agree it should apply to dead people, ever, because there's no cut-off. I think the option of removing a mildly notable bio on request destroys NPOV, because people can request only the unfavorable ones be removed (In practice, though, most requests are because their earlier entertainment or similar career is now embarrassing) --but there are exceptions, where the result of including the bio would be gross unfairness--and the few contested BLP interventions I've made have been in removing them. I think it never applies to companies, even personal ones like this one, except we would not include non-relevant personal detail about an executive, because it does apply to coverage of living people everywhere in WP (though there must necessarily be much more flexible restrictions on talk pages and WP space if they are to function). And views change: I previously objected to removing victim's names if there was any press coverage, but my most recent intervention was in the opposite direction. User:SlimVirgin and I have frequently been on opposite sides in disputed BLP questions, and generally her view has prevailed.

SV and I have also been on opposite sides in a few areas of overlapping interest, such as scientists who use animals in their research. Here it's a clear matter of opposite personal bias which is not going to change.

I deal with our differences in the usual way I deal here: by avoiding direct conflict with her when possible. I would recommend this to you also. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Rick DePiro

The search terms on the reward board are actually excellent leads for promo articles that need cleanup. I've been working down the list. For this article, a "Media appearances" section is promotional and most of the article is unsourced. It could be cut in half. I noticed there is an active disclosed PR rep on Talk from A&R (which I use to work for about 10 years ago) and I wish to avoid the usual accusations of sniping other COIs. That narrative is apparently convincing to at least some editors. I'll keep working down the search results, but thought you may have an interest in cleaning up this one. CorporateM (Talk) 13:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not comfortable working in that field, because I know so little I cannot tell if what I cut out is unimportant, or whether when I rewrite, I have rewritten correctly, But I too have been looking at articles previously advertised there. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What about Metaswitch? Weird, they seem to be following the Bright Line, but nobody fulfilling their requests have bothered to clean up the dedicated sections to awards, executives, etc. I noticed a disclosed engaged participant, so figured I would skip it for the same reason. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the Bright Liner is the same as with AfC or NPP -- it works well only if the reviews are competent and careful. So far, most of the people doing Bright Line work have been fairly good, which is reasonable as they are mostly people with a great skepticism about the quality of most PR work. ASs the method becomes more widely used, this is unlikely to continue. You are quite right that in general you shouldn't review the work of your competitors. I'll deal with this one. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. If I help a PR rep, I am accused of whitewashing it for my PR colleagues. If I do not make the edits they want, I am sniping the competition. OTOH, company articles are my primary area of editing and it is difficult to avoid COIs in that area. Editors sometimes ask me to help other COIs, but I think in the future I will just abstain when asked. Anyways, I have cleaned up a lot of the promotion in the articles that show up in those searches. I was aggressive about sending promotional, unsourced articles to AfD per NOT, V, and OR and expect some editors to disagree with it. A lot of client lists I left up when they seemed potentially informative. I may check back in a week or so to see if the promotion was restored. CorporateM (Talk) 23:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we need to discuss client lists. The sort of client lists that merit removal are the ones from , say, a paper clip company, listing all the large corporations that use their paper clips, which is about the equivalent of an article on the WSJ listing everyone who quotes it. In the other direction, if a company is the exclusive supplier of a major product to the largest user of such product in the world, we should include it. Where in the middle to draw the line is not all that obvious. One thing that certainly helps is to have it as a sentence or two, not a bulleted list. (If I could, I'd outlaw bulleted lists from articles the same way we outlaw writing in FULL CAPS.) For comparison, the practice I have with scientists is to list not all of their cited work, or none of it, but the 5 papers that have had the most impact. (I picked the number 5 to match the number asked for by many grant and promotion committees, the ones who rate quality more important that bulk.) DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The article I wrote on Waggener Edstrom comes to mind, because they are arguably best known for their work with Microsoft and that client is the focus of much of the article. When it comes to lists in general, I sometimes give my clients a rule of ten, because the GA reviewer at RTI International asked me to list all 11 divisions. However, for products my rules is that we cannot name them individually if there is more than 3-5.

I imagine the criteria is the same we use for everything; it should be sourced to strong secondary sources, informative and in good taste, but all that depends on the circumstance and the sources. They should not be listed arbitrarily, but to communicate something to the reader such as providing an example of the market they target, identifying the adopters of something bleeding edge, or identifying where a large portion of their revenues comes from. CorporateM (Talk) 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated topic, do you think I could solicit for your input here on the Yelp page? My comment was that instead of documenting every single allegation a small business owner has made against them, we should only include those that have more than just local media coverage. CorporateM (Talk) 17:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that's not fair. I was there first! :-p

Ok, any thoughts on what I should do with Matthew Bryden? The ANI board was archived without a close, though it seemed like there was support for a topic ban. The article is still about 50% poorly sourced contentious material. CorporateM (Talk) 22:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Before knowing how to work on that article, I would need to do s good deal of background reading, but from what I have done, the situation in Somalia is too depressing to think about. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding a wiki deletion

Hi, I need help with an issue I simply don't understand regarding a wiki deletion. I hope your experience as an editor on wikipedia can help me out here. I added a complete new article about the term: "888poker" about two weeks ago. I saw that a few editors seemed to have gone over it changing minor issues which seemed completely normal. I even received the brands' approval for uploading unique content like brand logo, in game photo, etc. Items that I believe can improve wiki users experience. Two days ago I found that a user called "2005" deleted my entire Wiki article, simply taking off the page and redirecting it to 888 holdings. I explained the basic difference between a well known brand (over 10M users) and it's corporate term and even gave the example of pepsico (corporate) having a wiki as well as pepsi, 7up and all its other brands, which is the exact same situation here. The answer I received was unclear (and even rude). You can see the conversation here at the end of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2005

As all content uploaded was 100% new, informational & non spam, I just don't get the accusations of duplicated content and the immediate removal. It can't be duplicated as I wrote it, and if there was s shred of a problem with the content itself, the right move, I believe, would be to comment on content change, instead of removing a completely new informational article that actually gives value to users. Because of the swift removal and false duplication accusations, I wonder if the editor actually read the wiki at all. I have no idea why we wouldn't want to actually enhance wikipedia and improve it to users (isn't that the idea of wikipedia in the first place!?).

Regarding the second argument of writing it in the 888 holdings wiki, I believe that a brand this size merits its own wiki article. If more text is needed, then there is no problem to add and enhance it - it just needs to be published first (and not removed). As other editors who went over this did not find a reason to completely remove the article, I feel this is poor judgement by an editor and I request your experience as an editor to see if this is an actual breach of wiki guidelines and give an editor's second opinion. I would like to settle this dispute as I feel there was hard work, effort and time invested in this (by me) and I don't think the reaction here was justified. Appreciate any help on this issue. The original article can be found on the term "888poker" (view history, and then restore it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalkn (talk • contribs) 13:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

full answer forthcoming, probably this evening. This topic field is not my specialty , and I need to check a number of things some information before I can give you advice. And it will be only advice, challenged actions at WP are ultimately determined by the community, not individuals, and the community is not always consistent. In the meantime, please read 2005's response on his talk page to another editor in the section above his response to you. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, still waiting your answer on the above issue. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalkn (talk • contribs) 09:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP Prod

Whether notable or not the article is eligible for BLP Prod. If a normal prod or AFD then yes WP:Before applies but not for unreferenced BLP's. BLP prod does not suggest the article is non notable purely that it is an unreferenced article of a biography of a living person which is not allowed on this site since 2010. Articles should not be created without sources and as an admin i would hope you would understand the importance of BLP. Also could you fix whatever you were trying to do with this edit.Blethering Scot 14:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

What I understand is that WP:BEFORE applies to all deletion processes, and if something is important enough, it's worth a few minutes trying to source it. It's so much worthwhile that I try to check every BLP Prod before the 10 days are up in order to catch the most important ones, such as government ministers, and add a source. This is especially true for people who have entires in their own country's WPs, as here, for then it is enough to copy over some of the references. (For lack of time, I no longer do it for athletes and entertainers, which are 80% of the BLPPRODS--even though my experience when I did is that about half are in fact quickly sourceable, unless it's an area that isn't covered by easily accessible sources. )

You are correct that in this case the French WP template syntax for the reference didn't carry over, so I fixed it. I should have checked, and the only excuse I can give is the time pressure from the presence of so many things that people nominate that they should have checked first. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Engage:BDR

Patrolling pages today I came across this. Could you take a look at and let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. The media stories are substantial and semi-independent. I think they represent the PR technique we will find hardest to deal with, the generation of apparently respectable stories. I can't call it A7 or G11. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that's what you would say. You can see what I was getting at though. Have to leave it as it is then, I suppose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Gilabrand

Hi DGG: Your expertise would be welcomed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gilabrand. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Nova Publishers

After an attempted whitewash some time ago, we now have a couple of editors here that seem to be determined to make this a hatchet job and even object to calling this an "academic" publisher. Your input to the (long) discussions on the talk page would be very welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding info from a CV (re: Articles for creation: Eric Winer, MD)

Hi DGG -- Thank you for your comments on this article. When I submitted this the first time around, it was rejected due to the sources being related directly to the subject of the article, or at least that was my understanding. I went through and adjusted this, but your comment about adding a CV as a source seems to go against this initial advice.

If I were able to somehow get a copy of a CV, how would I go about sourcing something like that, if there is no link? Will it need to be published on some kind of public server, that I can then link to?

Thanks for your help. Mlgraham828 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The previous comments were just plain wrong, apparently made in ignorance of the relevant guideline WP:PROF, and the guidelines for the use of first-party sources to support routine facts biographical articles. My central current activities here is to find afcs on academics rejected on this incorrect reason, and rehabilitate them. We do want third party sources of the accomplishments, but the publications in reliable sources will meet them, especially when you add the citation figures. Try to find some article about his work, if you can--it does help. Something posted at his university will be the best official CV, but some of the other sources listed that give information about him will do also. :The main thing you need to do is to make it more compact and remove minor material. Let me know when ready. If anyone challenges it, I will defend it--and if the citation figures are high enough there won;t be much question. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

International Prevention Research Institute

Hallo David, you have declined my revision of the article for review "International Prevention Research Institute" commenting it is more like a press release rather than an article and not enough external references. Actually if you compare it to the previous edition, now there are 26 external of 31 References. Every scientific field or expertise is now quoted by at least one peer-reviewed scientific publication. The projects refer the offical websites of the publicly funded research. I really do not understand what I should write different or what is missing. I took several comparable Research Institute articles as templates and see in the latest version no difference to them (see e.g Institute of Molecular Biotechnology or Gregor Mendel Institute). Please advise in more detail; thanks MaRuKuSuMaRuKuSu (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HeavyWeight Yoga concern

David, when you say in your AfD discussion, "I am not convinced that yoga when practiced by overweight people is a separate encyclopedic topic," I am not convinced you are trained enough in yoga teaching to make that determination. The beauty of an encyclopedia is that subject matter experts -- paid professionals, whether by university or industry -- determine the caliber of the information to be published. This article is not examining a simple activity of the individuals in a yoga class. It is talking about the methods and training used to serve a segment of the populace which has limited mobility and can benefit from the practice of yoga -- if only these people can find a yoga practice that accommodates their needs. I am curious about the practice of deleting an article by simply calling out the creator of something as an individual who owns a trademark. Scotch Tape https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_Tape is a neologism, too. And it's a brand-name. Any notable intellectual property must be protected. Thanks for your attention. Ronseybold (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I said "I am not convinced it is notable", I agree that if I had said that I were certain it is not notable I'd be saying more than I safely could. Obviously practices of yoga with be different with people with differences and problems, but for them they amount to a distinct profession or even a different style, is another matter , and not at all obvious. I judged to a considerable extent by the coincidence of the article name with the trademark of one particular practitioner. It is not that it's improper use by others of the trademark, which we ignore; rather it indicates the article title was chosen to promote the trademark. However, I'm not the person who gets to decide this--the community will discuss it , and then some other admin will evaluate the discussion and see what consensus is reached. If it turns out the community think it is notable, I have no objection at all. But it does deserve a discussion. The best thing you can do to help the article is to find additional references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases, and then to see if they do discuss it as something independent in its own right. If you can find good sources, you will succeed... DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already been told by an experienced WP editor this is a well-referenced article. None of the sources used in this article are press release-based. Like so much else on WP, it's sourced from print and online reliable sources. Metro-grade dailies like the Orlando newspaper, which publishes its reports on a blog, for example. Once I put up the latest source from US News, what then? I don't understand about bias from "material derived from press releases." If original reporting and writing follow a release, that makes a release only the starting point, subject to verification by the writer. This isn't pure scientific research, after all. As someone who's researched and wrote for published reliable sources for decades, some of my articles began once I received a press release. Back in the day, we called them news releases. Every story has to start somewhere -- but this one began in reputable sources.

FWIW, this article began its name as the style of yoga, rather than the name of its founder. It's notable, but it's also new. Not so new that it hasn't already been noted by 3rd party independent published reliable sources. A practice of yoga that opens up that discipline of health to an endangered populace is notable. I hope there are very few WP editors who believe teaching obese people yoga is unworthy of a report in the world's largest encyclopedia. You're probably aware of the MIT Technology Review article this fall, asserting problems with the WP editing process. This situation here is a personal illustration to me. Right now it appears that experts in the practice of certifying expertise are the gatekeepers for WP, rather than experts in the subjects of the articles. Again, use of a trademark as an article name is so commonplace on WP as to be expected. Names are trademarked to protect their creators. You're incorrect when you say, "the article title was chosen to promote the trademark." No, the article title was chosen to identify this explicit practice of yoga.

The independent third parties have done their work to discuss this topic in its own right. "For them to amount to a distinct profession or even a different style, is another matter, and not at all obvious." An experienced editor found them obvious almost six months ago. This has been a one-year quest (so far) to get this topic included in WP -- and deleting it on the basis of trademark use looks inappropriate while I read the rest of WP. Online reporting has elevated blogs as an information stream. It depends not on the medium, but on the creator of the content.... Ronseybold (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Different experienced editors have somewhat different interpretation of WP guidelines, and even with the same interpretation, they may apply them in particular cases as seems to meet the case But ultimately the effective standards are those applied by the community, which will make the decision. A different admin will judge what the consensus is; the consensus on such things often matches my own view, but not always. This needs to be discussed at AfD , not here. That's what AfD is for, and that's where your argument needs to be, and mine if I think necessary to answer it.

But as a general question you are quite right that the expertise for determining inclusion in WO is expertise at applying the WP policies and guidelines, not subject expertise. We try to listen carefully to subject knowledge, and take it very seriously into account, but it has to convince the general community, And in any case what counts isn't the individual WP expertise, but the group decision. I suggested it for deletion, I did not delete it.

As for blogs, the term is applied very widely, from what used to be a special subject section of a newspaper, to editorial opinion,to personal opinion, to pure promotion. Where any individual item is along this continuum is sometimes difficut to determine. Some of our rules saying "blogs" are indeed a little out of date, but we try to apply them as suits the particular situation. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Library holdings

Hello DGG! Thank you for your note at my talk page, I appreciate the feedback. I will look at those articles you listed this weekend and do some cleanup on them. I'll also try to be more mindful of promotionalism in the future. I'm curious about your technique of judging notability by library holdings, as in the Jedediah Bila AfD - it seems useful especially for pre-internet authors. Do you use Worldcat to find that information? How many libraries do you think are necessary for notability? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I use WorldCat most of the time. But WorldCat requires interpretation for 5 factors: First, it covers mainly US and Canadian libraries, with a lesser coverage for the UK and Australia and New Zealand, a very scanty coverage of Western Europe, and little else, so it requires careful interpretation when used elsewhere. Second, it covers almost entirely English language books, for in the US only the largest academic libraries buy anything else. Third, it covers current holdings, so what libraries had 50 years ago is not represented, so for older books of shorter spans of interest such as popular fiction it requires correction also. Fourth, how many titles count for a book to be likely notable depends on the type of book-- mainstream novels and important nonfiction are much more represented than esoteric subjects. I go by the experience of having looked for many books of all sorts, and one can do the equivalent by comparison with books known to be notable. (I have sometimes used comparisons to say that a work is or is not a major work in a field) As a fifth factor: editions must be combined to get a true picture, and the way libraries report holdings this is not always easy. As a result I usually report holdings as approximate figures. For major current works in popular interest academic subjects like economics, a notable book would have at least several hundred. For experimental fiction that fits no standard genre, only a few dozen libraries might buy it, but it can be just as important. For fan-oriented books on games, libraries usually buy very little, because they get outdated very quickly. For some of the kinkier sexual topics, libraries don't buy at all. A scattering of small libraries often indicates author gift copies.

The official WP standard is book reviews. But library holding correlate nicely with book reviews, because libraries buy largely on the basis of such reviews, especially for public libraries.

Outside the US, holdings can be gotten from the catalogs listed at WP:Booksources But none have nearly the depth of coverage in their own countries that WorldCat does in the US. -- but there is the very powerful consolidated search facility of Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog at [3]. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bill Still

I think it would only been rational to give me enough time to make a case. The William T. Still article was deleted way too quickly.

There was a "G4" or (something like that) claim. Which just isn't the case, since the stub was created from zero and I actually copypasted the older article in the talk page for reference.

I'm not proposing that the guy's claims are legitimate (although they are not that far from those of Ron Paul), but that they guy is exposing so much material that Wikipedia should find a couple of secondary sources to talk about them. If you check google books, you'll see that some writers claim he is a fraud and some support him. The point is that he has presence, anyway. I had the Beloit International Film Festival Award reference and I was going to add the International Forum on Financial Systems in Istanbul, in which the President of Turkey spoke as well. That and one book (ideally one debunking) and you have 3 unconnected sources.

It is not the first time the article has been done, and it has similar stubs in 3 other languages (the Swedish one foun better references, which I was about to use). There is a legitimate need for information on this guy, who is easy to google, anyway.--20-dude (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just found a WHDT report, that's 3 unconnected soures outside Google books [4]. --20-dude (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There have been so many previous deletions, that the best thing to do would be to go to Deletion Review. I suggest you make a talk page draft first, with the new references that you have found included. Then make your case, and be sure to mention the articles in the other WPs. If you can make a reasonable case for restoration, with the option for anyone who wants to take it to AfD , I think you've got a decent chance, though consensus at DRV is unpredictable, just as it is everywhere at WP. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Well, I'd be losing peer help. But if there's no other way around it (seriously, nothing??) I guess that's what I'll have to do. Originally I wanted to request the article and maybe help providing some sources. Is there any way to get that sort of deal? Or maybe some sort of "trial article" dynamic. The guy is quite a case. He is easy to google, but it's the articles from well known sources are hard to track. It's easier to find those sources (or the leads to them) in his own videos (since they feature clips). How can you link articles from wikis in other languages?? I tried, but when I open the wiki text of an article to see how it's done I can't find it. When I'm done with whatever I do (and if I do), where do I present my case for review??--20-dude (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You wont lose help. I'll help you. More later. The references are in the *text* of the other language article usually, not in the references section; If you find them just copy them as they are to the corresponding part of your text, and add a translation of the title. But I will take a look tonight. DGG ( talk ) 13:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is still a weak baby, but the sandbox is here. I still have no clue on how to tie the articles from other wikipedias. I started with the Swedish article and added information as second hand sources allowed me. I think I could go on looking for more stuff of the sort, but in my experience (I'm a very lapsed wikieditor, who once new all the technical stuff I'm bothering you with) it's never a good idea to do too much of an article without participation of other people.--20-dude (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC). Ps: I'm not sure how it fits but he's mentioned by Forbes here http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/05/31/the-case-for-monetary-freedom/.

For linking the article to the corresponding articles in other WPs, there's a more modern way, but the older way still works: w place at the bottom [[sw:SwedishTitle]] using the WP two letter abbreviations. The reverse entires will get made automatically. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think this might be the ideal size with enough references for its debut. Short enough to have a tight control of facts and big enough not to be a stub. What do you think of the writing, does it need rephrasing in some spots? [[5]] --20-dude (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done a little gentle tidying, to show willing (hope you don't mind me playing in your sandbox, @20-dude:). As I said when I mentioned the article here at first, I'm neutral about the content but was just keen to ensure that if we had an article it was at, or linked from, the "salted" title "Bill Still". Looking good now. It can be easier to format references if you use {{cite web}} etc, which you can use from the "cite" button on the editing bar. And note the "ISBN" trick: by putting it in capitals, and replacing the equals by a space, we get an automatic link to a search page where readers can check the book in Worldcat etc. PamD 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)"

And I've now turned a redlink blue by changing the initial to "I" instead of "İ". If you see a redlink which looks as if it ought to be blue, it can be worth doing a bit of a search to find the article at a slightly variant title (people with or without middle initials, or a Bill/William-type difference, or subtle spelling variations). PamD 22:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, @PamD:. Thank you very much. Everyone is welcomed to play with my sandbox, specially if they are going to make contribs as good as yours. What do you mean "salted"? (No, literally - I'm not familiar with the term). I tried with the templates for references, but I kept getting them wrong. Do you think the sandbox is ready to become an article? What else should I edit?--20-dude (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

"Salted" means that it's been made impossible to create a new article at that title, without the intervention of an administrator (WP:SALT) - after the 3 Deletion discussions on the title, I suppose. Derived from ancient (or symbolic?) practice of spreading salt over your enemies' fields so that they couldn't grow crops again - Salting the earth. I'll leave it to @DGG: to advise on the article's readiness. PamD 22:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Then it's up to you @DGG:. What's next? Should we get another peer review? --20-dude (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@DGG:: any thoughts on this now? 20-dude seems to be waiting patiently for your advice. PamD 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

CV

Hi DGG -- I read through the articles you sent and your suggestions and I hope I made quite a few edits and changes, taking out minor information and referencing a CV listed on his institution's website. I hope this works for you, but please let me know if you have any additional suggestions. Thank you again for all your help. Mlgraham828 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Afc and promotionalism

Hello DGG! Thank you for your note at my talk page, I appreciate the feedback. I will look at those articles you listed this weekend and do some cleanup on them. I'll also try to be more mindful of promotionalism in the future. I'm curious about your technique of judging notability by library holdings, as in the Jedediah Bila AfD - it seems useful especially for pre-internet authors. Do you use Worldcat to find that information? How many libraries do you think are necessary for notability? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I use WorldCat most of the time. But WorldCat requires interpretation for 5 factors: First, it covers mainly US and Canadian libraries, with a lesser coverage for the UK and Australia and New Zealand, a very scanty coverage of Western Europe, and little else, so it requires careful interpretation when used elsewhere. Second, it covers almost entirely English language books, for in the US only the largest academic libraries buy anything else. Third, it covers current holdings, so what libraries had 50 years ago is not represented, so for older books of shorter spans of interest such as popular fiction it requires correction also. Fourth, how many titles count for a book to be likely notable depends on the type of book-- mainstream novels and important nonfiction are much more represented than esoteric subjects. I go by the experience of having looked for many books of all sorts, and one can do the equivalent by comparison with books known to be notable. (I have sometimes used comparisons to say that a work is or is not a major work in a field) As a fifth factor: editions must be combined to get a true picture, and the way libraries report holdings this is not always easy. As a result I usually report holdings as approximate figures. For major current works in popular interest academic subjects like economics, a notable book would have at least several hundred. For experimental fiction that fits no standard genre, only a few dozen libraries might buy it, but it can be just as important. For fan-oriented books on games, libraries usually buy very little, because they get outdated very quickly. For some of the kinkier sexual topics, libraries don't buy at all. A scattering of small libraries often indicates author gift copies.

The official WP standard is book reviews. But library holding correlate nicely with book reviews, because libraries buy largely on the basis of such reviews, especially for public libraries.

Outside the US, holdings can be gotten from the catalogs listed at WP:Booksources But none have nearly the depth of coverage in their own countries that WorldCat does in the US. -- but there is the very powerful consolidated search facility of Karlsruher Virtueller Katalog at [6]. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Starship Troopers and notability

I noted you voted in the 2009 AfD for Terran Federation. I still think it is not notable as written, but probably could be rescued, so I am not touching it for now. But I prodded/AfD everything else at {{Starship Troopers}} (but the author, of course). Feel free to deprod, I'd be happy to take any of those to AfD if you think we need a wider discussion (I notified the authors, but most are IPs/inactive, so...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

other people got to most of them; a merge, as always, is so much better a solution, if it doesn't go too far. This is a very famous work, horrible as Heinlein's ideology may be. Why is so much SF like this? Is it just because military action makes good stories? DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In the future, if you reply to me not on my talk page, would you be so kind as to WP:ECHO me? Regarding Heinlein's ideology, the Starship_Troopers#Controversy section is not bad, and personally I lean towards the camp that sees his work as anti-military and anti-fascism (i.e., parodies) - through ones done very much in a "marketable, action" genre. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Piotrus:, in context of both the book and his whole body of work, when i was a teen ager I was greatly attracted to it as individualistic, but now I see it otherwise. I se it as part of the same cultural trend that brought us Ayn Rand--whose work can I suppose be seen as satire also---a return to the primitive virtues, which virtues iare primitive in their brutality as well. Or is it the old problem of overly=subtle satire? But yes, that part of the article is quite good, especially about the films. -- I do not disagree with you about the merits of listing them--the only effective way we can do anything about resolving this sort of problem is at AfD . DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The more people are notified, the higher the chance we can actually save the article. I've been doing more and more deletion nom's over the years, but I still like to consider myself more of an inclusionist... :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry for the ping notification. I forgot that Wikipedia does that now when you link a name.

In short, I agree that the admin is correct to apply notifications. However, I'm concerned that the administrator's interpretation of what constitutes a revert may be wholly different than what is normally considered a revert. As such, I posted an WP:AN.

Anyway, sorry again.

Hope all is well!

jps (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

as I said already the interp. is borderline, It is not clearly wrong. Arbitrary rules like 3rr breed disagreements about the definitions. My advice is to stick to work on the article, not on peripheral matters. My own practice is never to comment or edit more than twice in one day about anything, in order to keep a sense of proportion. And I have almost never known anyone to go to AN or AN/I and come out the better for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Good advice, all. Unfortunately, I have learned the super-hard way that when you don't resolve disagreements with administrators on the basis of their interpretation of the definitions that apply to arbitrary rules, you can easily end up railroaded for a few years over things like correcting a spelling error or editing an article FAQ. I am going to turn off Wikipedia for a day at least. Cheers! jps (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Gracias

In case you hadn't noticed, I quoted you in my defense. Weird situation overall. I appreciate the intervention. Cheers, vzaak (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

MIT Center for Information Systems Research

Hi DGG, I just noticed the AfC and your recent comment after I started the article. Since you have taken an interest, you might see further possibilities to merge both, or not? -- Mdd (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Some text have been merged by an anom, on which I commented on Talk:MIT_Center_for_Information_Systems_Research. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the current status of the article,due mainly to your work, is very satisfactory. I made a sugestion for fuerther improvement and deleted the AfC DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I will try to follow those leads. -- Mdd (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for Guidance

Hi. Sorry to trouble you, but you seem to be an experienced editor who knows what's going on. I do a bit of editing, but it's more of a hobby for me, so I'm not sure about how some things work. I've seen that you've been contributing to the same "articles for deletion" debates as me, and wondered if I could check how these work. I'm a sort of bystander, and don't really want to spend time working on editing these articles, but I'm sort of feeling slightly browbeaten, to the extent that I'm feeling guilty I'm not actually working on these articles myself. I don't really know much about different alien species in films and computer games, and do feel that other people could do a better job. My question is, if I give an opinion in an "article for deletion" debate, am I making any commitment to work on the article? I feel that I'm being bullied into it, and am wondering what I've let myself in for. Any advice you can give would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. RomanSpa (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Most people who say that an article can be improved at an AfD do not intend themselves to work on. There are many thousands of active editors, and although some leave each year, a similar number join and become active. What is not so bad it must be thrown out right away, can be improved at any time at all. We say that there is no time limit here but that's not quite accurate: if nothing happens after a year or two, the article may get listed for deletion again, and the fact that nobody has worked on it will be added to the arguments for deletions. Its not enough reason to delete an article itself, but if the topic is obscure enough, people may just give up on it.

But it would be extremely valuable for yourself, for WP, and for the people who will be using it now and in the future, if you do improve some articles. If you find yourself able to work within strict deadlines, you can add references to an article already listed for AfD, and then return to the discussion and comment that you have done so, asking the opponents to take another look at it. If you don;t want to work with the threat of deletion hanging over you, pick articles in need of improvement. Almost any WP article is in some need of improvement, but you could look for AfD debates that close as keep, but with people saying there are still problems (that's true for most keep closings, even if the closer doesn't say it explicitly)

In choosing articles to work on, be guided by three factors: your interest in the particular article, your knowledge in the subject field, and the facilities you have at your disposal for finding sources. For many internet sources some form of registration is required, though public and school libraries often provide access to at least some key databases, And articles for some subjects and periods still require access to large print libraries. But the free internet is sufficient to find a great many things expected and unexpected, if you develop the ability to look for it cleverly, beyond just searching the Googles. (Even without looking for sources there are plenty of opportunities for improve the organization and presentation of articles, but it is adding sources and material with sources that we really need the most.) Don't get discouraged by the incredible amount of material that we need to improve. The principle that if many people do a little, we will accomplish a great deal. is the foundation of WP, and it has gotten us from zero to here in 13 years. Think what we could do in the next 13. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your kind and helpful reply. At present I mostly do three sorts on things on Wikipedia: I correct small errors if I see them when I'm reading a page; I look at lists of alumni from different schools and remove vandalism and vanity edits; and I'm slowly working my way through the towns and villages of Burkina Faso, checking that the details match the official governmental listings (as presented to WHO etc.). I mostly use Google to check the notability of school alumni, and I use governmental, WHO and other UN agency data for the Burkina Faso work. I quite enjoy the work - I just do a little now and then, but gradually it builds up! I hope this is OK. Thanks for your guidance. RomanSpa (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding a wiki deletion

Hi, I need help with an issue I simply don't understand regarding a wiki deletion. I hope your experience as an editor on wikipedia can help me out here. I added a complete new article about the term: "888poker" about two weeks ago. I saw that a few editors seemed to have gone over it changing minor issues which seemed completely normal. I even received the brands' approval for uploading unique content like brand logo, in game photo, etc. Items that I believe can improve wiki users experience. Two days ago I found that a user called "2005" deleted my entire Wiki article, simply taking off the page and redirecting it to 888 holdings. I explained the basic difference between a well known brand (over 10M users) and it's corporate term and even gave the example of pepsico (corporate) having a wiki as well as pepsi, 7up and all its other brands, which is the exact same situation here. The answer I received was unclear (and even rude). You can see the conversation here at the end of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2005

As all content uploaded was 100% new, informational & non spam, I just don't get the accusations of duplicated content and the immediate removal. It can't be duplicated as I wrote it, and if there was s shred of a problem with the content itself, the right move, I believe, would be to comment on content change, instead of removing a completely new informational article that actually gives value to users. Because of the swift removal and false duplication accusations, I wonder if the editor actually read the wiki at all. I have no idea why we wouldn't want to actually enhance wikipedia and improve it to users (isn't that the idea of wikipedia in the first place!?).

Regarding the second argument of writing it in the 888 holdings wiki, I believe that a brand this size merits its own wiki article. If more text is needed, then there is no problem to add and enhance it - it just needs to be published first (and not removed). As other editors who went over this did not find a reason to completely remove the article, I feel this is poor judgement by an editor and I request your experience as an editor to see if this is an actual breach of wiki guidelines and give an editor's second opinion. I would like to settle this dispute as I feel there was hard work, effort and time invested in this (by me) and I don't think the reaction here was justified. Appreciate any help on this issue. The original article can be found on the term "888poker" (view history, and then restore it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalkn (talk • contribs) 13:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

full answer forthcoming, probably this evening. This topic field is not my specialty , and I need to check a number of things some information before I can give you advice. And it will be only advice, challenged actions at WP are ultimately determined by the community, not individuals, and the community is not always consistent. In the meantime, please read 2005's response on his talk page to another editor in the section above his response to you. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, still waiting your answer on the above issue. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyalkn (talk • contribs) 09:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies; I did check this and I thought I had answered you, but I must have written it only in my head, The general principle is, as 2005 said, that we do not make separate articles for individual brands unless the brands are particularly noteworthy in their own right; in any industry we prefer if in doubt to keep the material on a company and its subsidiaries together. Checking the latest financial statement, I see that the principal activity of the company is its casino business, with the poker business comprising less than 30% of the total. On the other hand, checking against comparable poker sites, it is one of the largest 3 or 4, and the others do have WP articles. That the others have articles is in WP not a sufficient argument that this one should have a separate article--we make no pretense to consistency. (I personally think we should aim at it, but we don't, and I must give you advice according to what is likely to be the community consensus).

The best way to proceed at this point is to do as User:2005 suggested, and add the material to the section in the main company. After doing that, you should suggest a split on the talk page of the article. The alternative way is to go into the edit history for the redirect, and simply revert the redirect, thus restoring the article. The onus is then on whoever wants to restore it. (the principle is WP:BRD). However, the other ed. has very considerable experience with articles in this subject, and you are likely to be fighting an uphill battle.

Looking at the article on the main company, I find it remarkably lacking in statistics, such as market share and the size of the various segments. As it is a public company, this sort of information is readily available. This is a common failing of most of our articles on business, DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Nova Science Publishers, the Dutch SENSE report on scientific publisher quality and the distorsions made of it in the WIKI article

Dear colleague DGG

please help in restoring some sense of objectivity. To the best of my knowledge, I collected some informations and debated them at the Talk Page Nova Science. My Rewritings were really dsitorted by user Randykitty saying that they are the lowest category while the truth from the Dutch report is this. Also the University of the South Pacific far from crticizing Nova officially, awarded its distinguished scholarship 2012 award to a Nova Science Publication.

Currently as of November 25, 2013 14:28 central european time, I stated in the re-written article, and please urgently protect it from vandalism now:

Similarly, the Dutch Research School for Socio-Economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment, in assigning publication credits for book chapters and books, ranked Nova Science Publishers in its class "C" (C-publishers (decent international publishers and excellent national publishers)). . Other C-class companies include Amsterdam University Press; Berg Publishers; Greenwood Press; Indiana University Press; Lexington Books; Marcel Dekker; Melbourne University Press; New York University Press; Ohio State University Press; Peter Lang; Prentice Hall; Rutgers University Press; Suhrkamp Verlag]]; Syracuse University Press; Transaction Publishers; University of British Columbia Press; University of Cape Town Press; University of Illinois Press; University of Ottawa Press; University of the West Indies Press; University of Washington Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Wageningen Academic Publishers; Zed Books.

A Library professional from the University of the South Pacific has voiced the opinion that Nova's books "do not go through a standard academic peer review process despite their academic focus." Nova has also been criticized for republishing old public domain book chapters, while providing insufficient indication of the nature of the content, making them seem as though they are new standalone journal articles.

References as of now (perhaps I committed some technical Wiki errors)

References[edit]

1."Company Overview of Nova Science Publishers, Inc.". Business Week. Retrieved 2012-08-08.

2.Journal catalog page accessed November 17, 2013
3. Merrick, Joav. "Editorial: A Tribute to Frank Columbus (1941–2010)". International Journal of Child Health and Human Development 4 (2). p. 0. Retrieved 2012-08-31.
4.Tausch, Arno (2011). "On the Global Impact of Selected Social-Policy Publishers in More Than 100 Countries". Journal of Scholarly Publishing 42 (4): 476. doi:10.3138/jsp.42.4.476.
5."Master Book List". Book Citation Index. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 2013-02-18.
6.WASS-SENSE book publishers ranking list 2011 accessed November 25, 2013 and ref name="QUALITY">The SENSE book publishers ranking list 2007 – 2010 accessed November 25, 2013
7 a b Phillips, Lara (17 September 2013). "A list of Print-on-demand publishers and self-publishing "Vanity presses" for librarians and faculty". University of the South Pacific. Retrieved 2013-11-17. Text "In December 2012, however, the University of the South Pacific President and Vice-Chancellor Professor Rajesh Chandra awarded Fiji National University’s new Professor in Economics, T K Jayaraman, the Vice Chancellor’s annual prize for excellence in research for Professor Jayaraman’s study on a single currency in the region, published in 2012 as a book by Nova Science Publishers, New York (From Fiji National University Newsletter, Dec 21, 3(51), 2012, page 5, available at http://tkjayaraman.com/docs/books/Dec%203%202012%20Award%20by%20Univ%20of%20the%20South%20Pacific%20to%20Professor%20Jayaraman.pdf " ignored (help)
8.Bade, David W. (24 September 2007). "The Content of Journals Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.". Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved 2013-11-17.

best wishes

• In the fields of science I (and the other editor) know, they are the lowest category of reputable publisher: so low, that, as I stated in public some time ago, and it may have been in an earlier version of the article, I never purchased a book they published. They may be higher in social sciences. How one particular country lists publishers for the purposes of university or faculty ranking is not a conclusive vies, and a list of the others in that category is not encyclopedic content. Any body who would rank them in the same class as U Illinois Press needs its criteria investigated. That they have managed to publish one book that won a minor award is a tribute to the author not the publisher--good publishers publish dozens or hundreds of prize winning books. I will edit this article I see fit.

By trying to get as favorable an article as possible, you are in effect encouraging those with bias in the other direction, and discouraging those who want to make a neutral article. Randykitty is the best WP editor I know in this field.

And when you come here to ask my views on an article, please just ask me to look at it--I can draw my own conclusions without needing to be guided. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So dear colleague you live comfortably with the fact that the opinion of a Librarian of a University is quoted while the opinion of the faculty and the University Vice Chancellor is not even mentioned? Libcitation, a tool developed by Melbourne University, is the latest technique in bibliometrics, and it's time respective scholars are taking on the subject and compare the global library impact and also the quotation patterns of different companies in various fields. What cannot be permitted however is to devalue the work of entire cohorts of scientists by bashing their publishers.

Best wishes User Weber

==Appy Pie==

Hi DGG: Firstly thankyou for temporarily restoring my Page Appy Pie for discussion at Deletion Review,and I agree with your points that you mentioned and I had already re-drafted the Article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cxs107/sandbox/Appy_Pie which I think meets all the guidelines of WP, please review the same and advise me of how I can replace my old article with the one I just re-drafted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cxs107 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the article is now composed of phrases from the various sources listed. Unfortunately, most of the sources use the exact same words to describe it, making it seem likely that they all copied them from one of your press releases. They don;t even do it well: the only one that actually shows what the product does is thenextweb, because they included a good screen shot from your program. Most of them include the same description of kickstarter also. That was probably in the press release as well. The only really independent journalism is the comparison articles in searchitchannel, which only briefly mention appypie and is in any case describing only one aspect of the platform. The Fox link, btw, goes not to Fox but to searchitchannel.

The idea is to write your own description in your own words, translate business jargon into English, and support it by the refs. For example, the yourstory review makes a specific journalistic statement that the company is becoming successful, and can be used for that. . I think it might be possible. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Historiography in Azerbaijan

Hi DGG,

I am ready to start working again on history and historiography in Azerbaijan ([7]). We can create an article on “Historiographic concepts in Azerbaijan” based on Shnirelman’s book “Memory Wars. Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia” (Osaka, 2001) and also a number of works by European and American historians. Shnirelman in particular describes the evolution of the historiographic school in Azerbaijan, which resulted in the creation of an ethno-national myth on indigenousness of Turks in Asia Minor as well as on Turkic kinship of Azerbaijanis and Shumers – a position which is officially accepted in Azerbaijan today. In the framework of this article we can also discuss the arguments of contemporary Azerbaijani historians, which include actual falsification of historical sources.

Thus my idea is to have an article on Azerbaijani historiography starting from the first historian Bakikhanov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasgulu_Bakikhanov) and ending with Ziya Bunyadov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziya_Bunyadov) and his successors. One of the chapters of the article will be titled “Accusations of falsifying sources in Azerbaijan” and another one will be titled “Counter-accusations of Azerbaijani historians”. Is this approach considered neutral?

Also, could you please make a concluding remark regarding the neutrality of the article “Campaign on granting Nizami the status of the national poet of Azerbaijan” ([8])?

Thank you in advance. Divot (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Using headings of that sort that imply one or the other party must by lying is not a good approach to NPOV writing. Try to find some other wording. In all other aspects of this question, I have no knowledge and cannot therefore give an opinion. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Douglas Schottenstein, MD

Hi, a few nights ago you deleted an article written about named doctor above. He is a prominent pain management specialist in his field and in NYC. The bio is written very matter-of-factly, without marketing fluff or hype. Can you please advise me what needs to be done for the page to be allowed? Thank you Nysm123 (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So far at least 5 different editors here have looked at various versions of the article, and everyone who has looked at it has agreed that all versions of it highly promotional (some of the earlier ones were in addition copyvio). Quite apart from that, I see nothing in any of the versions to indicate that he is notable by our standards. No significant prizes, very few significant academic or other publications. no distinguished professorship or head of service at a major hospital. The article contains of list of where he has been a guest speaker and that his patients think of him highly. Neither of these are relevant to /my , and including this information is promotional. That is in one of 200 people double certified in neurology and pain medicine is not notability. I see no current basis on which you can reasonably have an article. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

AFC Eric P. Winer, MD

Hi DGG -- I've looked at your notes and made quite a few edits on the page for Eric P. Winer, MD, which is still pending your review. I will take your notes into consideration for the other articles I've submitted as well.

I appreciate all your help. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlgraham828 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Mayflower Children

In December 2012 you intervened in a user dispute between myself and User:Mugginsx.
You advised that my e-book 'The Mayflower Children' could not be used as a source because it was self-published. In other posts you asserted that the book did not exist because you could not verify its existence on World Cat. You also claimed that the publishing company reference in the book, to Ascribe Publishing, was false because you could not find any reference to the book on the website of Ascribe Publishing.
I have delayed reply for a full year for a variety of reasons, but I would now like to challenge your judgement on several grounds.
Firstly the book is published; it has a ISBN number 978-0-9569626-2-1 - and is published by Ascribe Publishing, a British company registered in the UK, and on the UK government Companies House register. Your US-centric viewpoint led you to search in the wrong place.
Secondly the book is an e-book, and will therefore not be found in conventional libraries. A copy has, however, been deposited at the British Library, as is the convention for e-book publishers in the UK. Again, your US focued viewpoint may have led you astray here.
Thirdly the book is available on Amazon, where its details are clearly set out.
Fourthly - is the book original research? In the main the answer is 'No'. The book sets out its sources, and the main source is the article series written by Donald Harris that is cited in the source list for the Katherine More article that led to the dispute. Donald's work was original research; I had access to his research files because he gave them to me. I was able to do some additional work becsuse the Internet has made access to the UK government archives both simpler and cheaper.
Fourthly - let me address the isssue of self publishing. I would agree that caution should be observed when self published sources are used. But, as Wikipedia's own entry shows, self publishing has moved on from its vanity publishing history. For a local history title like 'The Mayflower Children', self publishing offered the best route to the copyright protection offered by publication. In my view the key question is not whether the e-book was self published, but whether the work stands scrutiny. That of course is debatable; the book has not been formally reviewed, and as a 40-page e-book focused on local History, a review seems somewhat unlikely. However I gave a presentation about the story to the Shropshire Family History Society, a fact that can be checked via their website - see event dated 20/11/2012. In my view that demonstrates notability, at least in a Shropshire context.
The above detail may or may not persuade you that The Mayflower Children might be seen as an acceptable source. In many ways this is irrelevant; it is clear to me from the edit history of the Katherine More page and associated pages that User:Mugginsx is using The Mayflower Children as his/her main source: s/he is simply not giving me the credit for the work. I have derived some amusement from watching his attempts to use other, and often obscure, sources to justify the content. I have made the odd comment to this effect on the Katherine More talk page, comments which User:Mugginsx has tried to delete.
As to your interventions. In my view your abrupt dismissal of the e-book, and your assertions that neither the book nor publisher existed, were the result of an over hasty judgement, based on your cursory research in the US. You did not bother to check the potential bona fides of the book, nor of myself as a writer, nor of the legality of the publishing company. In short I believe that you owe me an apology. Shropshire Lad (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

An ISBN number or copyright deposit does not establish reliability. Libraries do list e-books, if they purchase access to them. They even list free ones, if they thing them useful enough to call attention to them. The place to discuss the use of this book is the RSN noticeboard.

My standard advice to anyone getting into conflict over the editing of a particular topic is to work on other topics. I follow it myself. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

National Mortgage Settlement

Hi DGG-

I'd like to inquire why the National Mortgage Settlement (NMS) was not worthy of having its own page. It is the second largest civil settlement in history, only trailing the Tobacco Master Settlement which has a lengthy wiki page. It involved more states (49) than that agreement.

The NMS is a massive, ongoing settlement with a lot of moving parts and it directly affects millions of homeowners. Less significant settlements have their own page, like the GM Instrument Cluster Settlement. I've listed several smaller, less important settlements with their own wiki pages below. Why is that the NMS does not merit a wiki page, but those settlements do?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_Card_Interchange_Fee_and_Merchant_Discount_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Instrument_Cluster_Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdaq_Market_Makers_Antitrust_Litigation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nader1992 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Nader1992, It could potentially have its own page, and I agree with you that it probably should, but at this point there was not sufficient content. My advi e about the best way to proceed is to first build up the section on it at 2010 United States foreclosure crisis#National Mortgage Settlement using the material and references still present at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Mortgage Settlement,. and then ask on the talk page whether a split is advisable. Alternatively, if you are certain you've added enough material, just move it to a separate article, according to WP:Summary style. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alec Lazenby

Hi DGG, I'm going to have a go at writing an article about Alec Lazenby. I was wondering if you found any significant sources? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

see the books he wrote as listed on worldcat [9]. The US holdings for many are rather low, but they're on Australian agriculture. I haven;t checked Google Scholar, but his work is a little early for that. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I've found some material to verify some aspects of his life. But I'm not sure that there is enough verifiable info to warrant an article. It's only going to be a paragraph or two. If you could have a look at User:Callanecc/Alec Lazenby and let me know what you think that would be really helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Vice-chancellor is head of a university, and the article is therefore justified even as a stub. some articles are longer, but it isn;t necessary. What meeds to be added is the list ofd books authored or edited. Your choice whether to rewrite what you have into paragraphs and move it to mainspace, or add the material to the AfC and ask me to accept it. Personally, I think the second preserves the edit history better. Thanks for filling this in. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll do it on the AFC draft, but since it's going to be the same information as if I were to do in my sandbox I might as well just move it straight into mainspace myself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

How Do I find 3rd party sources???, (Help!).

Now, I have many sources in Anushka Sen Draft Article, do you think this draft article is good for make an article?.--Krishnadahal12 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The two newspaper articles you have are indeed the sort of references needed. Unfortunately, my impression is thatthey do not show that she is more than a minor actress at this point in her career. Unless you can find substantially more, I doubt it will be possible to make an article at this time.However, I am no expert in this field, , so all I can give you is my impression. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I will try to do my best, thanks for your Feedback.--Krishnadahal12 (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Now, look my articles, I edit it, I delete a minor about both Actors, now do you think it's ready???.--Krishnadahal12 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC).

User:Krishnadahal12: See below for potential sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pax Germanica

Think we can save it? Perhaps you could add a source or two so I wouldn't have to slap notability on this... Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I would redirect/merge to Axis victory in World War II DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Campaign for Social Science AfD error

Hello!

I noticed that you nominated Campaign for Social Science for deletion [10] [11] but you didn't create a deletion discussion—a Twinkle error, perhaps? I thought you would want to fix that.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks -- fixed now. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

My copyright violation on an article talk page

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:Rainbow Family.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply

Hi DGG, thanks and respect for all the good work you do. I replied to your comment on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Another_loophole_on_the_misuse_of_db-G6_theme. Absolutely not in any way intended as criticism, problem with the system not with good admins. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rumi's Kimia

Hello DGG, I removed your prod from the above article as it has previously been listed at articles for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 19:56,