User talk:DGG/Archive 17 Jun. 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great to meet you today[edit]

Hi! Great to meet you this afternoon, I enjoyed our discussions. Look forward to seeing you again at a future get together. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Kind of hate to say this, but...[edit]

There's a question at Talk:Lynn_Conway#Resolving_May.2C_2008_edit_war about whether Archives of Sexual Behavior is a reliable source.

The article's locked down again. The issues are polarizing. The editors are fighting again. I can't imagine why anyone would volunteer for this. But -- if you don't have enough stress in your life yet, you're the obvious editor for making a statement about the reputation of an academic journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the highest ranking sexuality journal in the world. I elaborated with documentation on the article talk page & mentioned it at the mediation. DGG (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Herndon article[edit]

Haha...yeah I was preparing to do that since yesterday anyway:-P. I'll go ahead and tag it for expert/other contributions. I just couldn't stand looking at that soapbox any longer...Always good to hear from you:-). Cquan (after the beep...) 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...the soapbox is back at J. Marvin Herndon. I smell an edit war if I go and revert it now. Got a take on the subject? Thanks. Cquan (after the beep...) 03:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Goldrick-Rab[edit]

Hello, In your comment on the discussion page for this article, you say that you'll re-nom for AfD. Has this dropped off your radar, or does the article now meet your criteria. Regards—G716 <T·C> 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

at this point, I want to look myself for her papers and the citations to them. Nobody has fixed up the article, so I'll see if I can do it before I renominate for AfD. I frequently say people should do that first before nominating, so I think I will try to follow my own advice. DGG (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't decide if something is spam or not[edit]

Hi. You've mentioned in your talk page about dealing with spam, I was hoping you had some experience and could look at volume rendering specifically the link to fovia.com. It has been added back twice by annonymous users, it might be in good faith, I don't really know how to judge in this case. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neither it nor the link that has been used to replace it is suitable. A non-commercial site should be found, and used as an external link. I have edited accordingly and left a note. DGG (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, I was thinking along the same lines but wasn't sure what was appropriate. There is no question the images in the original link were gorgous. I'll try to not be lazy and find a suitable replacement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but...[edit]

..are you sure you really know what a blog is?

[1]

Please read your edit summary and take a look at those websites. Thank you Randroide (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at those sites, then take a look at the Verifiability Policy's sections on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material". --Hu12 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the sites are not blogs. I do not talk with strangers in other user´s talk pages. Have a nice day. Randroide (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have sufficiently commented at AN/I. May not be a blog, but remains an inappropriate external link, whatever you want to call it, At least that's what everyone else says. DGG (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WP:Lectures[edit]

Hiya David, I see you were scheduled to give a lecture on sourcing in mid-May...did you give the lecture, and is there a "transcript" somewhere, or perhaps you've done an essay on the topic? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it has been transcribed yet, but the outline is at User:DGG/LR DGG (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed on ANI[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#I want a block to be reviewed.

Sorry, I would have told you sooner, but I assumed you had been notified. 1 != 2 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, always glad to see the support I generally find there when I first look at it.  :)


Could you please explain me this edit?[edit]

[2]

Plase comment only the removal of the reference to the book "Insane therapy", please. I do not get your rationale. Plase explain at Talk:Primal_therapy if you find that venue more convenient. Thank you for your attention. Randroide (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and others have sufficiently commented at AN/I. Inappropriate external link, in the eyes of everyone besides you & him. DGG (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This removal has not been commented at ANI at all. Please take a look at your diff. I guess it could be simply a mistake. Randroide (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, DGG, I think you overlooked this diff. Could you please recheck this edit?. I think that you erased a good reference (unrelated to the contentious external link) by mistake. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attention required at this section, please. Randroide (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, missed it: yes, the Ayala book is usable as a reference if she is notable. But I think the multiplicity of quotes indicate a bias. NPO articles dont do that. It's unnecessary even from the point of view of the opposition to him: it's stronger with a few good references.DGG (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


H.O.P.E. speech[edit]

Hey, DGG. This is volt4ire from the NYC meetup. Pharos mentioned that you would be a good person to help (or at least steer me in the right direction) in doing a pro-inclusionist speech. Any suggestions for speakers, arguments, debating-points, etc.? Thanks! volt4ire 02:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you think they will want to hear about specific details at Wikipedia? rather, I would aim it at the general roles of web 2.0 information sources, then specialize it to encyclopedias, then us, then to specific problems if people want to hear about them. DGG (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think volt4ire's original idea was for some sort of inclusionist vs. deletionist "debate", and I had recommended you an an inclusionist (I couldn't think of a New York-area deletionist at that moment). Which is an interesting idea, because of all the inside baseball at Wikipedia, the notability issue seems to attract the most outside interest (several articles in Slate, for example).
Which is not to say that this is necessarily what we should do. But I do imagine at a conference like H.O.P.E., we should avoid basic explanations of web 2.0, and focus somewhat more on the issues that are particular to us.--Pharos (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, see Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC#H.O.P.E. Conference panel (maybe we should shift this conversation there).--Pharos (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking[edit]

(Chuckle) you're right. It is pretty pointless. There's probably nothing I can say which will not exacerbate the situation and it isn't as if we are going to change each other's world views or anything....so how did you stumble over our little soiree? Actually, you don't have to answer that, I'll go back to mainspace work now.... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment removal[edit]

where is this comment?! i've never removed my comments; WP guidelines and also the desire for any conversations to stay as they were at the time. Can you throw me a link? thanks. Ironholds 09:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the comment is refering to me removing an essay on his userpage (which i did through MfD). If you read it, he actually admits to refactoring comments himself. i've been editing for 2-odd years so i know most of the policies quite well (especially this area, since a large chunk of my work is related to userpage cleanup), but thanks for telling me anyhoo :). Ironholds 19:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK--as I said, it was too complicated for me to figure it out myself. I certainly didnt realise is was MfD'd. My apologies for not catching on fast enough. DGG (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Hallor[edit]

Karl Wilhelm Hallör is his supposed full name, the article name is wrong. Furthermore, the List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War II does not list him, the list claims to be complete. There's no references in the article. Just claiming someone is CMOH recipient does not make them that. Where's the proof? http://www.medalofhonor.com/WorldWarIIG-L.htm does not list him. I stand by my speedy because this article does not feel right. Google can't find him either. I'd like you to review this and consider deleting after all, if it can't be established he received any medal at all. Shoombooly (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the user talk page & the deleted contributions , and it does raise considerable doubts about the authenticity of this. I think the simplest thing will be to prod it as no demonstration of his existence, and see if there's any defense. If there is, an Afd will make it very clear , and presumably eliminate further introductions of this sort. I will follow up about this contributor.DGG (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since i'm relatively new, what's the general policy on companies on WP? When deorphaning i find articles about just about ever local cardealer/hamburger joint there is. I do not think of them as encyclopedic, and WP is not the Yellow Pages, imho. Care to enlighten me (or point me to the right page)? Regards, Shoombooly (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best guide to this is WP:CORP and see our Business FAQ. In practice a local hamburger joint needs to be known beyond the city & have some degree of national press to prove it. A chain of them if large enough usually gets an article. What "large enough" means in this context is somewhat debatable. However, in my view, probably all companies listed on major stock exchanges would get articles, tho not everyone is as liberal as that. This is one of the things where, except for t he extremes, there is not all that much consensus. DGG (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks[edit]

DGG, I wanted to thank you for your recent participation in my RFA. Your major concern was the CSD tagging, and admittedly there was some errors in that. I've posted an analysis of the issues raised in the RFA including this one. Hopefully the game plan that I've devised will help to alleviate some of your concern. p.s. there's some templated thank-spam below. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review of Charlotte Marshall[edit]

Just to go back to the delation review back on May 29, although I was going to drop it since I had already destroyed usable sources I used to have, but I have just found this one to prove that there are third party source that exist for the article, and that belongs to The Sun newspaper. Jay Pegg (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really see any additional information there. Its just the place most of the article was copied from. DGG (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Principal and interest guaranteed security[edit]

I almost immediately speedily deleted this article after reading it upon seeing it appear at AfD. I should have been true to my own stated methods and read the history first; then I would have seen that you had declined speedy deletion on a tag. Apparently PROD has not been tried. I reverted myself; wanted to give you a heads up.

Frankly, I've never read anything here quite as scammy as this, so much so that the continuing existence of the article makes me nervous in and of itself. They seem to be offering some kind of mutual fund that invests in small business startups that in turn buy a system from the same group that offers them counsel on such matters as answering the phone. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment there, there's a good case for deletion unless there are other references. DGG (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synaptogenomics[edit]

I was wondering if I could have your opinion on this recently created article, the term only gets three hits on Google scholar all from the same group and it is apparent from the username that one of them created the article. A general google search does not indicate any more widespread use of the term. The papers are a couple of years old and have a few citations but I can find no evidence that the concept (at least under this title) has received any kind of real independent coverage or peer review that could be used to add neutral commentary to the article. From your knowledge of scientific publishing would you say that this topic can be the basis of an article that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

these are the only two refs in Medline. The concept may be reasonable enough, but it certainly isn't established under this name. AfD is the place. DGG (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Berg Publishers[edit]

This debate for deletion for some reason has been "relisted," and it appears this means prior comments are ignored or something, please comment again. Small publishing firms are the sort of institutions that should have general access articles in a project like Wikipedia, but aren't really much news. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berg publishers Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find some references to them in the trade press and that would really help. It would also help to expand a little on your argument at the AfD. DGG (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note the article was kept at AfD. DGG (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WP:HAU[edit]

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC

Serfdom in Tibet[edit]

I am always at a loss at how to deal with An editor like Cumulus Clouds, who thinks that he/she has a right (responsibility?) to delete any material thought unworthy of the subject [3], or [4]. I could continue to try to explain how neutrality is achieved in an article by a variety of sources, but Cumulus Clouds does not seem interested, and I hate getting pulled into a situation where the choice seems to be between letting one editor control an article, or getting involve in an edit war. Any suggestions? I am not trying to get you involved, but since you are an administrator who has committed on the article's AfD, I thought you might be willing to comment on the editorial situation of the article. Helpful suggestions will be very welcome. (I intend to put a slightly different version of this on the article's talk page, on the "civility" section, because I do not want to be accused of acting behind another user's back.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article does have to get wider attention--perhaps it will after the AfD--if necessary, use the NPOV or RS noticeboards. But I do have to tell you that I do not see how Parenti is a reliable source. DGG (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replied concerning Parenti on the article's talk page. Not that I think, with the current configuration of editors there, it has a chance of staying in the article no matter how justified he is as a source.
By the way, I can see that Melvyn C. Goldstein, who is an anthropologist, and the favorite source of some editors, might be qualified to speak as an expert on issues such as Tibetan polyandry, but just what is it that makes him an expert of issues of economic feudalism and the exploitation of serfs in a theocratic society? In any case, the idea that only a Tibet expert can speak on the issue of serfdom is narrow minded in the extreme. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, an anthropologist who has studied some aspect of Tibetan society is qualified to speak about it in general. The question of whether is was a relatively benign or relatively oppressive theocracy is not something which is going to be settled in Wikipedia. Even if one holds all theocracies evil, that question can still be difficult to determine. DGG (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I have a friend, from Amritsar, who is particularly cynical about anthropology as an academic speciality, a cynicism that is wide spread in India. It seems that anthropology students from the States, who are working on their PhD thesis, or PhDs who had gotten foundation funding to write a book, would fly to India and check into a nice hotel. They would hire an Indian to act as an informant to go to the ethnic group to gather information for them. Most of the time the informants would not bother to go anywhere, but stayed home and made up something, which then became the basis of a scholarly book. Knowing that this happens frequently does not give me a lot of confidence in Melvyn Goldstein as a good source. This is just for your information. I am not saying this applies to Goldstein, I do not know. I do not think much of the speciality, but I do not intend to make an issue of it, nor is there any need for you to reply. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another revert by [5] by Cumulus Clouds. Take a look at it please, and tell me if you think the action is justified. If this user is, in this case, right or wrong; in my view has consistently engaged in disruptive activity, including initiating the AfD without grounds for the action. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WP:HAU[edit]

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS[edit]

Thanks, I appreciate the support. I figured there'd be some tweaking if FICT or NOT are changed dramatically (though, it does not appear that there are going to be any major changes, but possibly some minor rewording). I already have one complaint about the images, but my stand is change WP:FURG first to be more specific about posters and like in the infobox before we go making a single MOS guideline contradict numerous others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, it's so good it's a model for the others. Clarity is better than precision around here, and clarity for keep it it from being absurd is better than a difficult fight to get an ambiguous wording that could be interpreted just as I want. while everyone else tries just the same in their respective directions. I think this process has been an example of consensus through mutual exhaustion.DGG (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC

June 2008[edit]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Archives of Sexual Behavior, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. I know you're not a newbie, but maybe this reminder will be useful to you. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was the removal of unsourced/poorly sourced BLP, which you had added 3 times already.DGG (talk)


Just letting you know...[edit]

You may remember a user called AngieDawn posting this message on your talkpage before deleting it. It was an article written about her son, who apparantly is an aspiring actor. However, looking at the article, and all that it was ever going to be, it completely fails this policy, and, shocked at the length of time the article had been allowed to remain on Wikipedia, deleted it. You'll understand why - the boy had only ever performed in school / localised productions for a start... Lradrama 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I had used Prod, I support your deletion via speedy, Combination of A7 and G11. DGG (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain material[edit]

Thanks for the note. :) I wasn't sure whether or not it was an actual copyright violation, but I found it through browsing the uncategorized articles and wanted to tag it for something to bring it to the attention of others/admins. CSD-tagging probably wasn't the best thing to do with this case, but I appreciate the information. Kind regards, Jamie☆S93 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks, I've appreciated you comments on that page as well. Best.15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)PelleSmith (talk)

COI noticeboard re Oxford Round Table[edit]

Could you take a look at the COI noticeboard? Your comments on Nomoskedasticity's evidence that User:PigeonPiece has a full-blown COI would be very helpful. Personally, I think the case is pretty open and shut, but it needs some admin input. In addition, Nomoskedasticity and I were both given COI notices on the ORT article merely because we have posted at the Chronicle forum thread. Both of us have long since ceased being SPAs and I think our COI warnings should be reverted. Thanks.Academic38 (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are at liberty to delete anything from your talk page. Deleting warnings is of course taken as an indication they have been read. But the reversal of your incorrect block earlier is sufficient vindication. DGG (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on the COI noticeboard. I was not talking about deleting anything from my talk page. I was asking for my own prior COI warning by Pairadox to be lifted (perhaps I should contact Pairadox instead?). Technically, both Nomoskedasticity and I are working with COI warnings, while PigeonPiece, who actually has a COI in the classic sense (i.e., undoubtedly an employee of the subject of the article), has no such warning. This does not seem balanced or fair to me. Thanks again.Academic38 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing that needs to be lifted. Anyone here may warn anyone else about anything whenever they please, as long as they do not do it in a manner that is inappropriate, or as part of edit warring, or in an obstructive way. It only has the meaning that you cannot actually be sanctioned for anything other than gross abuse unless you have ben warned. But Pairadox never could sanction you for anything himself--he would need to ask an administrator in one of the accepted ways. I do not see that ever happened; Guy acted directly--and wrongly, and others have already apologized for that. You've perhaps confused this with WP:Probation, which also never applied. DGG (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation and for the idea of archiving part of my talk page. Cheers.Academic38 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wanderlust (1991 novel)[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wanderlust (1991 novel), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanderlust (1991 novel). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? B. Wolterding (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Krewe of Orion[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Krewe of Orion, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krewe of Orion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? B. Wolterding (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:elementary schools[edit]

I am confused - I didn't add any new articles on that topic, I simply corrected the enrollment stats.--Cahk (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, my edits are limited to Vancouver-based schools only so I am not sure where you are coming from.--Cahk (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC). Yes, those are the ones I'm referring to--look, sorry, I made the error of thing you were the major contributor--but the only other person to have done much work on them was 2 yeas ago, I see he's still active so I will discuss there further. But I wasnt criticisng your work, just discussing. DGG (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification needed regarding my right or lack of it to edit the article on Frederick Crews[edit]

DGG, you recently gave me a BLP warning concerning the article on Frederick Crews. As I understood it, this warning meant that I must not add defamatory material to the article. However, it apparently did not amount to a total ban on making changes of any kind, such as, say, spelling corrections or adding the date of a book's publication to the bibliography. Shell Kinney's remarks also appeared to concern defamatory material, and did not look like a total ban on any sort of editing. In fact her comment, 'If you are unsure if something violates this policy, please ask first because any further violations will garner sanctions', could be understood to mean that minor, non-defamatory changes were acceptable.

More recently, I asked Shell Kinney whether it would be acceptable to make a couple of minor changes and was informed that it was not, and that in fact I was not welcome to edit the article in any way ever again. Whether this meant that I would be blocked for, for instance, correcting spelling, was not made clear. I am asking for clarification on this matter. Surely if a total ban on my editing this article had been imposed, I should have been informed of this at the time to prevent any possible misunderstanding? Skoojal (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think you would do extremely well to permanently avoid editing this article. Your feelings about him are not compatible with NPOV editing. There are very few people who can edit properly the article about anyone for whom they can say that their primary objective is to discredit him. I notice from your now deleted talk page that such also applies to several other topics. [6]. SK made a comment that I would endorse: WP is "just not... an appropriate place to vent your feelings". This applies to everyone and everything, and I think you'd yourself apply it to other people and other topics. You are a valuable editor--we are trying to ensure that you are able to stay here. Let other handle this and related articles. There's a great deal of work to be done in building up Wikipedia about the unrelated topics you also work on. DGG (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiders[edit]

Responded here. Shyamal (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing[edit]

From TNR: "The fact that Schilling is married to a librarian who, he laments, "never recommends anybody use Wikipedia" (no one, no one, hates Wikipedia as much as librarians) does not diminish his vigilance." --Relata refero (disp.) 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spiders[edit]

Responded here. Shyamal (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:elementary schools[edit]

I am confused - I didn't add any new articles on that topic, I simply corrected the enrollment stats.--Cahk (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, my edits are limited to Vancouver-based schools only so I am not sure where you are coming from.--Cahk (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC). Yes, those are the ones I'm referring to--look, sorry, I made the error of thing you were the major contributor--but the only other person to have done much work on them was 2 yeas ago, I see he's still active so I will discuss there further. But I wasnt criticisng your work, just discussing. DGG (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


List of people from Orissa[edit]

I & some others are trying to prune the list by the usual WP standard: those who have WP articles or would be obviously entitled to them. And you keep adding them back. What's up. ? DGG (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that my edits have been expanding the list. I've removed a stack of business cards for a pile of random doctors. But if I accidentally increased the size of the article by restoring junk then simply removing it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, looking closer, you're certainly right. Sorry. DGG (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copyedit[edit]

Ha, I didn't bother to look to see that someone was editing the page. I just noticed the strange double comma. I will be gone until tomorrow evening, so you can edit away without worry about edit conflict from me. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. Thank you so much for your helpful comments on my talk page. I have posed some questions there for you. As if you don't already have enough to do. Your profile is very intersting--serials librarianship has certainly changed in the last 20 years, no? And open access is certainly an exciting development.

Thank you for you helpful mediation and guidance in the ways of Wikpedia.

Hope —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjl7 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tells[edit]

I wonder if "every place that has ever been inhabited is notable" is really true. Take for example tells (article is at Tell). According to the article, there are an estimated 50,000 of these visible in the Middle East. Some, like Tel Aviv are still inhabited, but should an article exist for every single one? What about the ones that haven't formed a mound? I'm sure you can't dig a hole in arable land anywhere in the old world without finding some evidence of human occupation. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per NOT#PAPER. (and avoidance of cultural bias) , yes. Though of course the ones that have not yet been found & named are not yet suitable content, per WP:V. The equal notability of historical and present day things and places is one of the consistently affirmed principles. If you think this should change, perhaps a suitable talk page would be the place--let me know where. DGG (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is my true concern. The tells, for example, have local names that might translate to "the tell over by the dry creek". I could go through a topographical map and create pages like "Abandoned village at 29.970676,35.679495, Jordan" 29°58′14″N 35°40′46″E / 29.970676°N 35.679495°E / 29.970676; 35.679495. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of geographic names are like that, basically descriptive phrases. For a tell, I'd wait for an actual name used by somebody, which is sign that at least there's been a preliminary investigation and listing. Unnamed tells might be handled like asteroids, in a list. DGG (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't WP:V call for two or more sources? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not if there is one really reliable source. e.g., an obit in the NYT by itself is taken to indicate notability. But I agree with you that a name on a map is not enough, unless it indicates that it is i fact an inhabited place. Some names have for example, turned out to be names of farms. DGG (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Means[edit]

Hi DGG, how you doing?

Your edit comments on the removal of the PROD on Amanda Means talked about notability, but the PROD on the article was about the lack of Attribution not WP:N. I feel that articles which lack attribution diminish the quality of Wikipedia and should be deleted regularly. Sure I can AfD, but I find that with a PROD, editors who cannot be bothered to find refs and qualify their articles often cannot be bothered to removed the PROD and so this is an efficient way of cleaning up with little conflict. I think AfDs tend to cause conflicts since they provoke, almost force, a discussion. A good process where discussion is required but a waste of time when a passing editor is too lazy to add the refs required.

I alert the editors before hand and ask them to improve the article and ony PROD if nothing has been done. I honestly hope that if an editor finds their article PRODed or even deleted they will learn from the experience and, if they are serious, recreate the article with all the necessary elements.

Leaving 100s of article without proper attribution cannot be a good thing and I do not want to flood Afd. Just my 2 euro-cents worth.

See you around. --Triwbe (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

right. it needs sourcing. if it can't be verified after a decent effort, it gets deleted. I was a little tired last night, so I just did it enough of it to show notability now. (The museums have to be searched through their individual databases, not usually visible on Google). One can certainly make a case I would have done better to do it and then remove the prod; but also that you should have, before placing it--the Harvard item at least shows up in google. But that unsourced articles be removed has been rejected, as separate proposals, and confirmed by repeated consensus both at afd and drv. DGG (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Wikimedia NYC Board Member![edit]

And now, for the hard part ;) Our process, as it goes forward from here, is laid out at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Chapter formation. I've written a draft Wikimedia New York City Bylaws at meta, and I would invite you to please comment on it, and make suggestions (see also a couple of possible future Resolutions). This is a critical stage of our approval process, when we must achieve a consensus among ourselves over bylaws, and work with the Chapters Committee to have them accepted. Thanks for your help!--Pharos (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am effectively banned[edit]

Hi,

Vassyana has put me under a restriction which amounts to a near complete ban from paranormal articles, and which gives ScienceApologist a completely free hand to do with them as he likes. I am asking for your input, as this is otherwise the complete end of my editing on Wikipedia. Here is the link

For details on why it is actually a ban, see this section.

Thanks ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

malformed comment[edit]

DGG, could you please repair this comment so we can see what you're trying to say? Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops. tried to say too many things at once. DGG (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested[edit]

David, could you perhaps have a look at this: WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Sloan_Bella. A sockpuppet may be involved and I am unsure what to do and where (or even whether) to report it. Wim --Crusio (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no real idea hereDGG (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Article[edit]

Hey David, can you supply me with a copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutritional Gatekeeper piece to my subpage. I’ll work on it in the next few weeks. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done, at User:Shoesss/Nutritional Gatekeeper.DGG (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ShoesssS Talk 00:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Internet Journal of Medical Update[edit]

Sorry to disturb you again but since it's your area of expertice (I think?) - is this journal likely to have recieved the kind of coverage from which it would be possible to write an encyclopaedia article? Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little, and will check some more. The main justification for keeping it would be avoiding systematic bias--it is probably the main medical journal of its country. DGG (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clue check[edit]

Would you please look over Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:MartinPhi#Resolution and leave a message with your thoughts? Vassyana (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very well done. Are you by any chance interested in running for arbcom? DGG (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that I'd be a good candidate for ArbCom, but thanks for the implied compliment nonetheless. Vassyana (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have made a report at WP:ANI regarding user:Dicklyon.[edit]

Dicklyon appears to have withdrawn from the mediation page; at least, he has ceased participating despite that he is continuing to make edits for the past three days at Archives of Sexual Behavior and other pages that the edit war has leaked onto. Because of that, in additional to a substantial history of what I believe are harassing behaviors, I have made an entry at WP:ANI. I understand that I am expected to notify all others who were involved in the dispute.

The entry at WP:ANI here.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It seemed appropriate to notify you of Dicklyon's report that my editing violates COI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MarionTheLibrarian.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Primal Scream[edit]

Would you mind explaining your recent edit to The Primal Scream? Skoojal (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see the talk page there. and your own talk page also. going page by page through each chapter of the book is unreasonable and excessive detail;--and you're still only in chapter 5. DGG (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are detailed articles on other books. I will restore the material you just deleted unless you direct me to relevant policies showing that it is inappropriate. That The Primal Scream is unimportant is an insufficient and mistaken grounds for removing the material. Skoojal (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there are not such sections on other books of this sort. I never said it was unimportant, but rather that it was of not such great importance as to justify this kind of treatment. Why not try for a more moderate expansion instead? I am not going to edit war with you, but I do intend to pursue this by seeing what others think.. DGG (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in full concurrence with your actions on this. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, why? Skoojal (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted articles[edit]

Hi DGG, thanks for the note re those two deleted articles. If you want to restore them I have no objections. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Of Mice and Men in popular culture[edit]

In 45 minutes, I've found many, many cites - from blogs to NYT. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant be the one to close it, I already !voted. 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

0RR??!?![edit]

Just when I thought you weren't going to let things go, you have to make a suggestion like that. I know for your work you rarely need to revert, but I use revert so much that imposing this restriction will essentially end my ability to do anything at Wikipedia. I do wish you would stop butting into this conversation. It makes the whole thing much worse every time you say anything. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

once again I was discussing everyone & did not mention your name. You need not feel that defending the cause of science at Wikipedia is up to you alone, and that if you do not revert then nobody will. The actual work you do best, in my opinion, is writing clear analyses of the status of the science--we really need you for that. DGG (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm happy to write clear analyses, but being banned from reverting when there are so few editors who actually effectively monitor pseudoscience pages (judging from their quality) is like killing a person to prevent someone else from murdering them. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit you have me at a disadvantage here, for I do not want to do such work myself. But I think a closer analogy to what you have in mind is to do cosmetic surgery on someone who is about to be murdered. More seriously, I hope the rather general notice this is getting publicity will attract other users--that would be at least some benefit out of it all. DGG (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Bobby Jack article[edit]

Okay, someone ended up deleting it, but I cannot tell who did it via the deletion log. I feel the speedy was incredibly inappropriate, so i would like to restore the article immediately and request that anyone who does not believe that it should exist should use AFD. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article is Bobby Jack Brand. It was deleted as promotional only,which is not the case. I cannot see it in the deletion log either, which is a little odd.I will check again in a few hours. However, I do not think the article will hold in AfD--the two sources given are apparently mentions of the company in articles about what school children are wearing--I cannot see if they are discussed to an appreciable extent--unless they are, it does not meet the current interpretation of the general notability criterion. Still, not a speedy as A7 either.. I will restore it if I cant figure out which admin deleted it so you can ask them directly. DGG (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason why they are not visible from the preview pages is because the mentioning of BJ is later in the articles - I found them by typing "Bobby Jack" into Google News, and there are more entries. As I said, this brand is sold in major U.S. department stores, so that is not only a notability claim, but it means there should be more sources explaining this. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add, I found this recall notice on Bobby Jack clothing - http://www.consumeraffairs.com/recalls04/2005/bobbyjack.html WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SchuminWeb removed the brand Wiki article from the Bobby Jack article citing A7 [7], so I think he deleted it. As the clothing page said that the brand was sold in major United States department stores, I don't think it is an appropriate A7. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for his reply. You will need to obtain the full articles are the quotes to demonstrate some importance--ask your local library for them. DGG (talk)

Bishop Cuthbert deletion[edit]

why have you deleted Bishop Cuthbert - it is a new estate in Hartlepool - answer please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Kelly (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no evidence at all that there might even possibly be any notability. If you have any specific thing to insert that might indicate it, you are welcome to try to rewrite the article. But 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases), will be necessary if the article is to be kept. DGG (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ottava Rima[edit]

DGG, I agree with you that it was a content dispute, but Ottava has shown no indication of dropping the issue, and if you look at his talk page here you can see that all he is doing is changing what the problem is. It started out as a membership item dealing with what John Rose said in his article prior to his analysis of the poem's Masonic symbolism (Ottava claimed Rose said he was a Mason, and Rose did not say that). That was after bringing it up on here on the article talk where Ottava blatantly shows he is interpreting sources ("Rose is mocking those who say Smart is not a Mason"). By the end of it, all of a sudden we're "discussing the poem" after meandering through other material that was no more relevant to the initial statement either because Ottava was intentionally misconstruing statements I was making in order to try to make me look foolish, never mind statements about RS for sources he's never seen. I finally bowed out of the conversation, and he tried to bait me back into it by the subtopic he started, which is full of nitpicking based on "things MSJ got wrong" (because Ottava presented them incorrectly in the first place).

All of this indicates to me that this entire process is being done with intent to cause a problem unless Ottava is right and everyone else is wrong. He has the same incorrect information in multiple articles, and he is simply going to go and keep changing it back despite everyone else telling him there are problems. so this is really a question of editing behavior at this point, not content - the content disputes on the project, the article, and the user's talk page are all instances of the greater methodological problem. I would suggest you do not unblock him unless a topic ban is instituted until the problem is rectified. MSJapan (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I noticed that things were getting rather far afield. DGG (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava and I are in the process of hammering out a compromise ATM. MSJapan (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. let me know when you are both ready, and I will unprotect the page. DGG (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: redirect[edit]

There was no way for me to know you were working on it. Edit conflicts only occur for the second person to save.
I redirected the way I did as the it was the copy and there is more edit history at the other article. Also, per the naming conventions for companies, we normally don't include the legal status. However, I don't have a strong opinion and if you want to flip the order, feel free. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not assuming good faith with respect to me[edit]

At the current discussion of sanctioning Martinphi you are treating me very badly. If you have personal sanctions you want to make on me, the least you can do is show where I have acted to justify your suggestions of specific by-name sanctions being placed on me. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way of getting things accepted are to deal with all parties just the same. And as i said at the discussion, nothing is being asked of one that is not appropriate for all--the proposals there are those that everyone should follow. I try to edit that way myself, and I hope I succeed. You and he have the chance to do it all properly from now, and everyone else will follow the example. If I did not AGF I would not have endorsed such proposals--they can only be followed by those who have good faith and an intent to be constructive. But what i also do is AGF for your opponents. DGG (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not a "party" in that issue until Martin dragged me in. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
personally, I see the proposed restrictions as what arb com should have said in the first place, a what they should say in future similar cases, and much of it as general rules that should apply to all. EVERYONE should be prohibited from entering a discussion primarily to engage in contention with another editor. EVERYONE should avoid making comments about other editors in article & policy discussions. EVERYONE should avoid entering policy discussions to make a point, or based on interactions with other editors. EVERYONE should be restricted fro doing this with first warnings--which have already been given here--and then escalating general or topic bans. EVERYONE should be advised to edit on a range of topics. Those are the proposed sanctions. I try to apply these rules to my own editing. I think they could usefully be extended to all Wikipedia editors always. So Martin is the first for whom we are being explicit, and you are mentioned also (as "vice-versa") and I would support applying it to everyone in the general subject field of editing once we see if the language needs adjustment. DGG (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're being a hypocrite. You are making comments about me in "policy" discussions. If you really think this is a good idea, make it a policy page that really will apply to EVERYONE, but focusing on me when you are claiming you want it to apply to EVERYONE is simply contradictory. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the above certainly looks like a personal attack. Complaining about supposed AGF failure while not being willing to extend an assumption of good faith, is .... what? I have *no* opinion on the underlying dispute, only on the above edit by ScienceApologist; making a charge that a person is a hypocrite is clearly a personal attack; it's irrelevant to any legitimate issue. Whether DGG is or is not a hypocrite has no bearing on Wikipedia policy or guidelines, and therefore it is not justifiable under any color of necessity, not that this was even claimed. Given that ScienceApologist is a well-known and experienced user, maybe he's lucky I don't have a block button, I'd probably use it as someone uninvolved. If he cares about continuing as an editor here, and I assume he does, I'd highly recommend he apologize immediately, striking out the hypocrite business, before an administrator with one of those buttons pushes it.--Abd (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never had the need to ask for a block based on anything said here, having never experienced any serious vandalism. Anyone wants to say something unpleasant about me, this is the place. But I intend to archive this discussion as soon as it's finishedDGG (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I wouldn't expect you to complain, DGG. However, if (or as) ScienceApologist's behavior comes under scrutiny, his comment here would quite likely weigh against him. My comment certainly was not a threat. As I point out in another situation, if it were a threat, it would have been placed as a warning on his Talk page. I advised him to strike it out, because that would effectively neutralize it, without taking out any legitimate criticism. For him to claim that your arguments are inconsistent or inconsistently applied would be legitimate. To call you a hypocrite is not acceptable at all. To say "you are being a hypocrite" is finely distinct from that, just as you say "you are lying" is distinct from "you are a liar." A distinction without a difference, in fact. From his response below, it seems he thinks this is a private conversation. It's isn't. If he wants to suggest privately to DGG that he's a hypocrite, we could have nothing to say about it. But when it is said in public, it is one more example of the incivility that poisons the Wikipedia community. Generally, such behavior deserves swifter community response than it receives. My comment is truly mild, it wasn't a threat but a warning not accompanied by the display of a big stick. ScienceApologist could decide to reflect on it, and to take from it what is useful, or to ignore it, in which case I predict that similar behavior will accumulate and result in the loss of his editing privileges. A prediction, not a threat.
DGG knows I generally think highly of him and do not think he is a hypocrite, full stop. However, if DGG himself thinks the above is a personal attack, I will certainly redact the comment upon him telling me. After all, I have a set of criteria for dealing with perceived incivility here. My point regarding hypocrisy is directly relevant to the issue at hand. While DGG is saying a certain policy should apply to EVERYONE he is simultaneously supporting a policy that applies to specific people. That's hypocritical so in that sense I say DGG is being a hypocrite. You know, accusing someone of not assuming good faith is itself not an assumption of good faith. Wikipedia behavior guidelines are inherently contradictory. They've always been that way, but it makes many of the stickler rules-based editors really ridiculous. I can't even have an impassioned conversation without having some referee breathe down my neck. Get over it! ScienceApologist -- SA, FWIW, I am being explicit I support it as a first step leading towards wider adoption. DGG (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SA, if you want to have "an impassioned conversation without having some referee breathe down [your] neck," don't have it in public. You can take the advice or leave it, what I think about it won't have any immediate effect. However, should process ensue, such as an RfC or a comment, it might have an effect. If you don't care about that, fine. It's just one more small weight on one side of a scale, I'm not the judge, the community is. I explain above what you could have said that would have satisfied every legitimate component of your comment, and you could still make it so. As to accusations of AGF failure failing AGF, not necessarily. Now, under present circumstances, had I accused you of AGF failure, you'd have been correct. But I didn't. I pointed out a possible appearance, quite as such, making no statement about the underlying reality. If, as it seems, you took that as an accusation, we might be looking at an example of a shoe fitting. Or not. As I said, I'm not the judge. I wrote about appearance, and made no charge of bad faith. As to "get over it," I'm not on it. I'm not attached to any change in your behavior, nor to any result here. I have some level of obligation to comment on what I see, but when I do, that's it. "Inna maa al-balagh" (your obligation is only to convey [the message]) is the Qur'anic way of saying it; karma yoga would be a similar concept from another tradition. (Do what you think right, let go of the results -- which does not mean to ignore them.) As to Wikipedia guidelines allegedly being "inherently contradictory," that is only superficially true. The guidelines and policies are governed by an underlying reality which is consistent, they only appear contradictory when taken, as you note, as "rules" by "sticklers." In my RfA, I was asked what the most important policy was, and I responded with the totally obvious answer, Rule Number One, which I assume you know is WP:IAR. Rule Number One is not "inherently contradictory," it is merely difficult, sometimes, to interpret. DGG, among others, was taken aback by that response. But I remain firm, and utterly unconcerned if that cost me votes. That's the most important policy. That it is often misunderstood and even abused doesn't change that. So, ScienceApologist, I suggest you take your own advice. Get over it! --Abd (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rather thought you';d say that :) --but first of all, i've been commenting at a specific discussion of people's behavior--which obviously is going to have to continue being an exception--that should in fact be the one place we do that. Second, I checked back on that AN/I page, and I see I never mentioned you. Not once. It's been courtesy blanked, but it's still in the edit history. If I've mentioned you by name in any other context than a specific discussion about you opened by someone else, I probably shouldn't have--where did I do that? Thinking back though, I might have possibly have used your name to refer to your expressed view on a policy page--its handy to do that sometimes to avoid having to refer to the nth comment back when n starts getting large, though I try to avoid using names even then unless it would cause confusion. DGG (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is you supporting Neal's proposal which does name me by name. That's why I'm miffed about. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, but I cannot help what other people say. It mentions two people by name, and you in only a secondary place. It is in my opinion generally wise for anything that might possibly be interested as censure to make a special point of being even handed. It goes along with protecting the wrong version, or 3RR regardless of the merits. Agreed this does not make for good distributive justice. But it's not intended as that--just a good way of prevention, like a curfew. Affects the good and the bad alike, but keeps the peace in communities at risk.  :) DGG (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot help what other people say, but you don't have support them. Being "even handed" is fine except when people are dragged into situations for no reason other than tit-for-tat. It's a case of tu quoque without even a quoque. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD songs[edit]

My apologies, i was unaware of that policy aspect. My thinking went "non-notable people=csd, non notable companies=csd, non-notable bands=csd, non-notable songs=...". Ironholds 22:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Hello DGG! How are you? DGG, I want your views on something. It is related to original research. I don't think it will be appropriate to discuss it on-wiki. Can I send you an email? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

use the link on my talk page, "email this user"DGG (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Opinion[edit]

Hello David can you take a quick look at this article [8] and give your opinion on reposting at this point? Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see its talk page. DGG (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks appreciate the input. ShoesssS Talk 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

Hello DGG. I have send you an email. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

I apologize if this question comes across as rude or insulting, because I sincerely don't mean it to be. But I have to ask: are you familiar with the purpose and concepts behind disambiguation pages? Have you ever reviewed WP:Disambiguation? I ask because you seem to make a habit of de-prodding disambig pages that don't actually meet that purpose; I'm assuming you find them listed on the page logging all prods. (The two that I've run into you while editing recently are Prague Declaration and Princess Blanche, but I have vague feelings that we've conflicted before on the issue, although I may be wrong.)

I did notice that you removed the disambig-cleanup template from Prague Declaration after saying you thought the page was fine as it was; does that mean you don't think it is a disambiguation page? (I don't think it is, either, because there aren't any articles to disambiguate, but I also don't think it's a legitimate article.) The template had been there since April. Propaniac (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see I was not really clear. I meant its not a classic disambiguation page, because it does not link to articles, and I think you agree about that. It does serve that purpose adequately well in informing the person who looks for the term about the likely contexts. But you are right, it needs improvement, and I was quite wrong in saying it was fine as it is. Possibly it can be turned into a proper disambiguation page by linking to the appropriate sections of articles I'm not happy with calling it list of... since that's not really a likely search term, but this can and should be discussed at the article talk page if you want to do it. If its your field of interest, it isn't mine particularly, why not improve it. As for the guideline, see the paragraphs 3.1.4 and 3.1.6.
I was working on the principle that deletion is the last resort, and if you were suggesting a name change that should be discussed before a prod is placed. I do that for all sorts of articles of all types in patrolling prods--if something other than deletion is suggested, they do not belong there. I don't particular watch for disam pages.
As for Princess Blanche, as I recall the problem was figuring out what it referred to, and I think you ended up seeing it more clearly than I. DGG (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Your Help at the Lynn Conway Mediation[edit]

Your assistance is most appreciated!

The Mediation Barnstar
I, BrownHornet21, do hereby bestow upon DGG this Mediation Barnstar for displaying exemplary courtesy and patience, and being of great assistance in the Lynn Conway Mediation. BrownHornet21 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, BrownHornet21 (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun Problem[edit]

You have beem recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

Hi. I've replied to you here, on ANI. Bishonen | talk 08:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]


Lyme Disease entry continually sabotaged and censored - can you help?[edit]

Dear DGG

I was told you might be able to help with the following problem, or suggest someone who can.

The Lyme Disease page is under almost constant attack from members of one scientific camp. Lyme medicine is split into two opposed camps, and certain individuals from what we call the Steere camp will not allow the two sets of viewpoints to be mentioned on Wikipedia. They ruthlessly remove everything but their own views.

In particular a user known as Retros1mone has been removing whole sections and also substituting false information, which could expose readers who may have Lyme disease to real danger if they believed the content he inserts.

There are also others, not registered with Wikipedia, and using anonymous IP addresses, who continually insert pornographic or nonsensical info into the article to put people off reading it. Parts of that article were authored by scientists doing cutting-edge research into this disease.

Because these saboteurs use a different anonymous IP each time, there is not much point reporting them using the normal procedure, as they will only switch to a different IP the next day.

If you know of anything that can be done, please let us know. I know that many thousands of Lyme patients will be grateful if this article can be kept accurate, and if all current factual and relevant information on this disease can continue to be made available, without fear of censorship or sabotage from a biased camp of doctors, who actually have a very poor record of patient satisfaction indeed.

Elena Cook Shine a lite (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC) .[reply]

You know, somehow I thought someone was going to ask me about this article. We have no way of keeping Wikipedia articles accurate in a scientific sense--all we can expect to do is to have them reflect accurately the scientific consensus or lack of it. In maintaining balance in an article, such has to be the basis of the argument, not patient satisfaction or danger--and there's nothing an admin can do more than any other editor. But attempts from anywhere to sabotage an article with irrelevant material, such as general discussions of biological warfare, --that is another matter, and I will take a look at what everyone had been contributing there, and everyone's possible COI--single purpose accounts as well as anons. In particular, most anon nonsense with an article is not a conspiracy against it, but random people making fools of themselves, and we can easily deal with that. DGG (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in fact, I just did--it's been semi-protected for 2 weeks. My further work there will be as an editor not an admin. DGG (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG,

Thanks very much for agreeing to help out.

I am not aware that there have been irrelevant "general discussions of biowarfare" in the article. There is a discussion of biowarfare ***as it realtes to Lyme*** , which I have contributed to myself. Most of the assertions in the section, which is listed under "Controversies", are supported by references that meet the criteria of WP's Reliable Source policy. This section is continually being removed, as well as many other sections, by the same user I mentioned above. He provides no scientific argument to justify its removal, just offesnive name-calling about "conspiracies" and "fantasies".

Elena Cook —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shine a lite (talk • contribs) 06:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i do not agree with you. I went back over the diffs & the links, & I consider it a far fringe conspiracy theory without any reliable sources, & the qy of it including it has been discussed there sufficiently. To summarize my understanding of the situation, in your version, [9], not a single one of the refs are to the point, except your own radio interview, which is not a RS. General refs to BSL4 labs possibly or actually working on the disease are not relevant to the hypothesis. I'm not sure its worth even a mention unless there is something better. Someone other than you has to actually have said it in a RS, not just given facts from which you can speculate that it might have happened. The place to consider this is on its talk page. If you like, give the best full quote from a published source that discusses the hypothesis & I will respond there--If the book discusses it specifically, give a quote and page numbers; I am always ready to be convinced if i see direct evidence. But please dont feel you harmed your side of the argument by about asking me, for I was, as I said, already aware of the article. DGG (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STEC, Inc.[edit]

Hi DGG. I reverted an IP edit adding a "News" section to this article. After it was added again, I took a more careful look at the article and it seems very promotional. I'm contacting you because I saw your name in the history in a case of speed delection. The company is notable but I think the article is "over" like it is now. More than 30 company links in the body; sections as "Notable Achievements", "Core Capabilities" and "Environmental Leadership"; no neutral references and a farm of external links, all of them to the company. I'd like to have your oppinion about what is realy usefull for an encyclopedia. Regards; Caiaffa (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep. I informed the i;p. contributor about our Business FAQ. I removed most of the advertising. I will go back and trim the notable achievements. Thing is, I think it really is a major OEM supplier, and, in its earlier incarnation, was very well known to the build-it-yourself computer market. As nobody owns an article, if people add spam to articles about their companies, we simply remove it. Since it's on NASDAQ, you'll probably be able to find one or two real references. As for the general question, a strong case could be made for including every company on the major stock exchanges, and I think that would extend to NASDAQ also--they have reasonable standards for listing. The real problem is there are too few people with an interest in working on these articles, so they are at the mercy of the PR guys. If you dont agree with me, try AfD. DGG (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Notability of The Intelligence of Dogs[edit]

I'm surprised that you removed my notability message at the top of The Intelligence of Dogs. You state that you confirmed notability, but the article itself should do so through appropriate references. Unfortunately, this article provides no references at all except to the book itself. Like the two NY Times articles that mentioned by Tony Fox, this article consists of little more than a summary of the work. This article does not prove that the book meets the minimum notability guideline for books since at least some of the works cited "should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." The first NY Times review Tony cites (though he doesn't do so in the article itself) is no more than a plot summary, and the second only briefly mentions the book. Therefore, your comment that there are "two full NYT articles about it" is stretching it at best.

The Intelligence of Dogs still doesn't meet any of the other criteria listed in the notability guideline for books, but even if it did, the article should reflect that.

Finally, as far as your remark about that you "hope the objections are not based on the expressed disagreement with the author's conclusions", note that all of my edits and comments have been focused on the low quality of the articles in question. There are plenty of criticisms available of Stanley Coren's hypothesis, methodology, and conclusions in this particular work. That is all immaterial to the quality of the article and value of its subject as encyclopedic knowledge. The bottom line is that while Wikipedia has established low thresholds of notability, we must still provide adequate support for the information presented. Stating that articles are clearly notable is fine, but if that's so clear, then where are the citations to prove it? Let's not assume that everybody knows. Briantresp (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Taking this in turn[reply]

  1. you can put the tag back it you like, I never dispute over a tag one way or another. After all, it just says that someone questions the notability, and so you do.
  2. we don't ourselves actually judge if a book is notable. People who discuss books in publications do, and we just record the fact. Two different writers in the NYT discussed it, as did the Boston Globe. By considerable precedent at AfD, books discussed in a full article in the NYT or a similar newspaper show sufficient public attention to be notable. I see 3 articles. We do not analyze just what it is they say about it for deciding notability, if they think it's important enough to discuss or summarize in that kind of detail. I'm sure other publications did also. I cant imagine that most magazines aimed at dog-fanciers didn't, for the appropriate hobbyist magazines almost invariably discuss books on their subject important enough for a NYT review. In fact, if there are extensive reviews there, it would have been enough by themselves; there is no need for it to be a major general-interest newspaper. Specialized books are discussed in specialized sources, and notability within its field is enough, for books and everything else covered by Wikipedia.
  3. .I've read the articles. The Boxer NYT review discusses the subject of the book in detail. The Wade article is a comparison of it with another book on the subject. The Boston Globe article is apparently a discussion of people's reactions to the book. Between they they provide more information that just a list of the contents (obviously, nonfiction doesn't have plot, but I think that's the analogy). -- the reason for the provision is that articles about fiction should include at least some minimal information about other things than the plot.
  4. You say "There are plenty of criticisms available of Stanley Coren's hypothesis, methodology, and conclusions in this particular work." Such criticism, if published in 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases), would greatly improve the quality of the article (It also makes the book and the author notable beyond any question.) So go add the references and an appropriate summary of what they say, making sure you get positive criticism also. Surely you want to improve the article if possible. The low quality of a Wikipedia article is not reason to delete it or question the notability of the subject, just to improve the article. The asserted low quality of the research doesnt make it non-notable either--completely incorrect work--even pseudoscience or hoaxes-- if widely commented on in reliable sources is notable. You say yourself you have the citations.. By practice here, the criticism of the work in this particular book goes in the article on the book. Discussion of his work in general goes in the article on the author. Material covered in the article on the book just gets referred to in the article on the author. We have standard advice for the problems here: WP:GOFIXIT. DGG (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dicklyon/Marion case at WP:COIN[edit]

Hello DGG. This case has recently shown up at the COI noticeboard. I'd be willing to suggest an *article ban* for the two participants if you thought that was a good plan. I noticed your comment in the ANI thread, where you seemed to be toying with that idea:

I've tried to work with the people here, and I have the impression that several of the parties involved on various sides have sufficiently strong POV that it inhibits neutral editing. The material on the journal that was reinserted was in part justified on the talk page, and was not contradicted there. In any case, the proposed limitation is absurdly wide--we do not make topic bans of this sort after this relatively mild sort of disruption. I thought of suggesting a one-month moratorium on all of the involved editors for the immediately involved topics--except that I'm sure the same would continue then. These articles need the active involvement of neutral editors--but I'm not sure any neutral editors are sufficiently interested to decipher the complexities. I know I am not. DGG (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You know the COI policy as well as anybody else, so do you have a suggestion for what conclusion the COI noticeboard ought to draw? I think an article ban might loosen up the situation enough that, when the debate eventually resumes, it might be on a better track. I won't support this idea unless you agree, though. If you think one month isn't useful, how about three months? The ban would be only from the articles, not the Talk pages. (If the participants would sincerely limit themselves to the mediation, and not edit any articles or post on any noticeboards until an agreement was reached, this whole fiasco wouldn't be necessary). EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reason I have not answered here yet is because i do not know what to do about the situation either. My personal feeling is that for everything except the computer aspects, neither editor should be working on this series of articles--and I gather from his comments elsewhere that dicklyon realistically intends to decrease his involvement accordingly. But this is the sort of topic where people who actually want to write about it tend to be people likely to get emotionally over-committed. So I dont see anyone neutral really prepared to work on it. DGG (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be entirely agreeable to leaving the related set of articles alone and to sticking to the mediation page. In mediation thus far, however, I have agreed to all the mediator's suggestions and Dicklyon has refused them all. If Dicklyon is permitted to continue editing in his usual areas of interest, what would the motivation be for him to do any different?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we will not need the mediation if you & he both stop working on these articles. DGG (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can negotiate that with him, I will follow this suggestion from you too.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to avoid editing any sexology-related articles if TheLibrarian will. I still intend to work on the Lynn Conway bio when we unlock it; if we can just leave the sexology-related section to others, instead of adding the stuff that TheLibrarian wants to put there, that will be OK and we can move on; the paragraph in question already links the BBL controversy, and we can let others deal with that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking about putting all of sexology off-limits; that's my main area of interest, and my edits outside the immediate issue have been stable and apparently well-received. I was thinking the bio pages related to the controversy: Bailey, Conway, James, and McCloskey, and TMWWBQ; we limit edits to their talk pages.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going to make a list, can you at least add others on which I've had a problem with your COI? These: Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and maybe since you're so close to the relevant controversies, also these:

That way, if somewhat wants to undo some of what you've done there recently, they won't have to fight you for it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that to be meaningful, this will have to extend to all pages relating to the controversy, not just the bio ones, and to all insertions where these workers are considered or proposed to be an authority, and to insertion of references to their work in any article. (not that some of the insertions of these references is necessarily wrong, but they would have to be suggested on the talk pages and inserted after checking by some other editor. DGG (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, Marion, I see we do have an overlap of interests, because I also try to source the articles of some of the paraphilias, tho typically from a literary/social, not psychological viewpoint. I don;'t see anything wrong with your additions, including from AnnSexB and the people mentioned, but it will save unnecessary trouble & possible unwarranted criticism for you if someone else looks at them also. DGG (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that makes more sense than trying to list the articles. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to list the actual articles; it avoids the ambiguities presented by interpreting what constitutes related and who is an authority on what. Each of the problematic and the likely-to-be-problematic articles already contain sections for the Bailey/Conway/TMWWBQ controversy. I suggest that Dicklyon and I agree not to edit the controvery sections of the pages listed below and not to edit any part of the articles (listed below) that are essentially entirely about the controversy. (And by not to edit, I mean limit edits to the relevant talk pages.)

No direct editing of controversy in:

No direct editing of:

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. If we're careful on pages other than those, staying within the spirit of this agreement, we will avoid getting tangled again. Thanks; we're done, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Perhaps the above should be copied into the mediation page for reference.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A bit of assistance, please?[edit]

Hey there. I've noticed that you're remarkably good with finding references and sources for scientific topics, and was wondering if you might be able to help out with an article I'm trying to improve. Stanley Coren is a psychology professor and researcher with a substantial body of work, but another editor has expressed concerns about his notability. I've been adding a few references, but I've only got Google to work with. Would you be able to possibly provide a few refs that could be used to ensure that his notability is confirmed? I'd appreciate any time you could provide. Thanks very much! Tony Fox (arf!) 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my experience at AfD the article will stand as is. The main thing that would help is a full list of books from WorldCat, and following up your Google Scholar links to find citations and reviews. I've explained further at the article talk page & will keep an eye on the article and clean it up a little.

For a fuller explanation of some of the factors involved, see in my talk page archives [10] and [11], since I've been asked about this before. I've also made some comments on the talk page of the article about his book--which seems to be challenged also, despite two full NYT articles about it. I hope the objections are not based on the expressed disagreement with the author's conclusions, for that would be a strong POV violation. DGG (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the help. I was pretty sure I was on strong ground with my objections, but the COI concerns expressed by the other editor made me want to get a couple of outside viewpoints. I'll keep working on sourcing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough[edit]

Right, let's stubbify, then =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneyfacts.co.uk[edit]

Did you copy and paste the wrong link to The Observer in your comment about this article? The one you added seems to be about vintage guitars. They may be somehow shuffling their URLs to troll hotlinkers, but that usually results in 404s. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, I did paste the wrong link--I left out the final character-- so I fixed it. DGG (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CarolSpears[edit]

The current clean-up list is Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/CarolSpears. There is a request by WP:PLANTS to save the references - I'm putting them on the talk pages of the articles I've cleaned. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

found it; I'm marking the ones I clean. I should finish them in a day or two. For the bios, there's enough left that the refs can stay in the main part. I wish we had BotanyKP back. DGG (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Dallas Park Cities[edit]

Something's just not right about it, though. Can you help? I have a doc's app't to go to now. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there is a problem. I'm not sure about the best way to handle major chain hotels like as this, for they are important in their community if only from size. They really are a problem because =unless they are architectural monuments, almost anything that is said will seem a little like public relations. I've been puzzled before, and I remain puzzled. Probably worth a discussion. I'd say merge, except the interest is really the city, not the chain. DGG (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant views of Mary[edit]

Could you follow up in the two sections where you already commented over at Talk:Protestant_views_of_Mary? Many thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Editor2423[edit]

In response to your message dated 06-24-08: "Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to promotional links to various articles, you will be blocked from editing. DGG (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)"

David,

Yes, I have been updating relevant pages with new information from the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants World Refugee Survey 2008. Please note that these updates are entirely factual, and the World Refugee Survey is clearly marked as the source for each. The Survey is an official publication of USCRI, and has received international media coverage. It is the only publication that consistently evaluates individual countries on their treatment of refugees each year, and therefore, it is the best source for recent refugee statistics. All statistics published by the Survey are independently verifiable, and the publication clearly lists USCRI’s research partners. This is an appropriate source for Wikipedia, previous editions have been cited extensively, and there is nothing wrong with updating and enhancing many articles related to refugee issues in succession.

-Amy

Please read our Business FAQ, which, though it deals primarily with business, also applies to non-profit agencies, and explains our conflict of interest policy.If this material has been published by your agency, the accepted way to add it is to suggest it on the article talk pages. Then, editors not affiliated with the source will consider it. I think you may possibly be right that the material is useful,, and you may notice, I have not gone round removing the references, though they need to be added in such a way as not to highlight the name of the organisation. But this is not the way to do it. Others are more stringent than I about our WP:COI policy, and are quite likely to remove the references and the links, and for good measure blacklist your site, if you continue in this manner.
Surely you see that ain order to maintain the objectivity of the encyclopedia, we must guard against people affiliated with any organisation adding what they think important. We get 2000 new articles a day, and many times that number of new links and references. People look at them all, and with a considerable degree of skepticism, for about half of them are totally unjustified public relations, advertising, or personal puffery. Many people try to make a living attempting to add links to our articles, and the addition of many at once to publications of a single organisation, is very much of a red flag.
I try to keep good references in, but they need to be added also that they will stay in; I've helped others do it right. This is already being discussed at our WP:COIN Conflict of Interest, and [[WP:ANI] Incidents noticeboards. I think you will find I have warned you accurately of what is likely to happen. Please read and understand our policy before you respond there. DGG (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your suggestions on Nutritional gatekeeper[edit]

Hello David, just wanted to share this DYK with you. I believe without both you and Roger's suggestions this article would have been just one more Deleted subject of an Afd. Thanks again for your input. ShoesssS Talk 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated DYK query On 24 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nutritional gatekeeper, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

D. K. Ray-Choudhary[edit]

I know as little from him directly because I did not get a chance to meet him. I knew him through Navin M. Singhi and Siddani Bhaskara Rao. They worked with him at Ohio and even today. I thought of adding all these great ones. Thanks. JRN08 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JRN08 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme disease, again[edit]

Thanks for your note. I've made a fairly extensive series of edits aimed at restoring balance and correcting some of the more obvious issues, though admittedly there is still a long way to go. I'd be interested in your feedback. MastCell Talk 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dayanand N. Naik[edit]

Hi David, hope all is well with you these days. When/if you have a moment and are interested, would you mind lending a hand with Dayanand N. Naik? He is quite likely notable and I've found record of his publications but when you start talking about things such as Multivariate Data Reduction and Discrimination and Computational protein biomarker prediction it goes way over my head and I haven't been able to find anything accessible to the lay person that might help explain Naik's work. Thanks! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there's a problem here--his notability is not as a researcher--from Web of Science, the citations to his papers are not high enough. He's an applied statistician, which is why such papers as there are are scattered over a number of fields. So it would be dependent upon the possible wide use of his textbooks. The reviews for them certainly help, but evidence of adoption is needed also, which takes a tedious look through Google. I'll do it in the next day or two. Perhaps it will stand at AfD, though there tends to be objections raised when this is the primary criterion satisfied. . DGG (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as always. I wasn't entirely sure he'd survive AfD but I thought there was enough to avoid a speedy as a published researcher and thought the dbs you have access to would claridy other issues such as citations. No rush on doing anything and thanks for what you have done, I figured I'd just get it on your radar. Have a good evening! TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Naik will be ok; this is a stub!!! There are many stubs out there! Thanks.

I was looking at the Google scholar report attached above. I do not know what is DB report. (I'm not an administrator). What I want to say here is that we cannot all the time conclude just based on these. They are confusing sometimes and difficult to analyze.

Dr. Naik has taught over several thousands of students (including undergraduates, and graduates) at Old Dominion University. He is definitely an Educator. We cannot judge just on the fact that who are using his books in classrooms. I believe Naik's books have gotten some merits. Selection of books in academia is complicated and biased. It should not judged on the number of publications; it should be judged on the quality. One might have written fewer than 10 papers. Currently Naik's article (I started with) is a stub; over the time, this stub might be improved. Thanks. I would like to see DB reports for Dr. Naik. 22:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

JRN08 (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EB1911[edit]

No offense taken. But, like I said, the horse is out of the stable. If you want to get it back, I think you underestimate the effort and the difficulty of finding volunteers to undertake it. More added to the ongoing discussion. David Brooks (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMHS / FLAB[edit]

I figured the link on the disambiguation page was gratuitous, whether the article survives or not. Cretog8 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quite possibly, but it needs to be done at MfD, not speedy, so people can see it. DGG (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Your post to WT:USRD (no this is not a vandalism thing)[edit]

Well, I'm not sure its really the same. A normal road meetup would be mainly made up of a large people eating a big lunch and then getting to cars getting pictures of things with their camera - but if you can help sponsor it, it would be a big help. Also, I would probably host it if it were to happen. Thanks though.Mitch32 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Even in NYC, some people still drive. The NYC group has already held a photo session, though it was mainly by subway, and so have others.--see their page. And there are a number of people coming to our meetings from NJ. If you do hold it there be sure to announce it. DGG (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would be cool - the group attracted to this mainly is that ones who take pictures of roads and signs. I'm sure we could squeeze in some sight-seeing pics as well. I'll look into the possibility.Mitch32 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, tommorrow (June 26), I will come up with some ideas for a future one. I have some sightseeing ideas and road things to see already in mind. If its also possible, could you bring this up to others in the chapters. By tommorrow, I should have some set ideas in mind.Mitch32 03:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Title/3RR[edit]

I'm not attempting to "fix" the dispute with a 3RR ruling. I'm attempting to resolve the naming problem with the WQA with 3RR. Presumably I have some right to bring a dispute to dispute resolution without having it be renamed by the subject of the WQA. He has said on my talk page that the intent of renaming the WQA was to reflect his position that the WQA represented a "dispute" between us that he is attempting to solve by making entreaties to me on my talk page. I guess it wasn't clear enough on the WQA itself that wasn't the problem. Protonk (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my point--you dont settle a WQA issue by trying to take it somewhere else instead or as well. Disputes are best contained in a single place. As for the renaming, I agree with your position on it. DGG (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I don't understand the process. If I make a WQA about a certain set of acts, then the title is changed so that it no longer appears to represent the same set of facts, where do I go for resolution? I'm not attempting to use the 3RR forum to have the WQA resolved. If in using it at all I am wrong, let me know and I'll remove it. But if I remove it, where do I go to have a third party step in and suggest a solution about the title itself? Again, I'm not asking for a WQA solution in 3RR. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The process is that we engage each other exhaustively on talk pages and then when all else fails move to WQA and beyond. Not before really interacting on the talk pages. A WQA report at this point is skipping steps in the process, which is why it should be withdrawn and instead focused on talk pages or we should just move on. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and when someone suggests as I did that we disengage and get back to the article content, starting a WQ report rather than trying to resolve things on talk pages is just not how we resolve disputes here. There are levels of dispute resolutions and as you can see from my interactions with Seraphim Whipp, when someone engages me politely, I will listen. Let it rest already as going on and on is not going to make things better. Sicnerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the point is to discuss the underlying issues that brought you there in the first place. If you want dispute resolution, that what other people will want to help you resolve. But at his point, I agree with the comment below that the think to do is to disengage altogether. If you want to email me, feel free. But let us all please not follow this up further, as the first step in disengagement. DGG (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No! An AfD attempt at Beyond intelligent design[edit]

I just came across an effort to delete another one of my articles at Beyond intelligent design. As you can see from the talk page, I object to this AfD and it probably at least partly falls into the same old category: it is a FRINGE position people disagree with, so they feel more emboldened to try to get rid of stuff they disagree with. Help!--Filll (talk | wpc) 14:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

problem with the article is there are no real reviews of the book; essentially it has to at least be important to the YE creationists,besides his own ads and lectures. Another problem is that "Word Association" which publishes the book, is a vanity publisher[12]-- I thought from the name it would be a evangelical religious publisher, but it isnt. and the book is in exactly two public libraries. Suggestion: keep the general outline, but find out what the most notable books from that POV are. That's low even for self publishing--usually people manage to get it in half a dozen. Personally, I'd like to go after all self-published books at WP, and maybe we should make a category so we can try to keep it empty.
However, its not an AfD just a prod, so you can remove the tag if you like, but I cant imagine it wont be sent for a real AfD. if you do. DGG (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I made the article in the first place was not so much because of the book, but because of the eponymous radio spots. The list of stations carrying these regular radio spots runs to 23 pages ! I only later found out that there was a self published book with the same title (actually as I look now, I find several books and articles with this title by different authors).--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

try rewriting it for either the spots or the person. this very large number of spots will at least give you an argument at afd. DGG (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me a few days to rewrite it, although I put a little information on the talk page. Hopefully I can clean it up so it can survive AfD.--Filll (talk | wpc) 00:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page request[edit]

Hello! I am sorry to bother, but it is possible for you to dig up a recently-deleted article on David Zolotarev? If you can please e-mail it to me, that would be very nice. It involves Soviet-era anthropology, which is something I am interested in. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

emailed; it should not have been speedied. But I think the best thing to do , rather than deletion review, or requesting Tanthalas39 to reinstate it, would be to find the references to his actual publications, and add it back yourself. Personally, I find the subject interesting also, particularly the the question of how any of them might have managed--unlike him-- to survive. DGG (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Rivera[edit]

My mistake - nothing wrong with the close, but I read the opening date of the AFD as 21 June. I've restored it. Black Kite 06:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy question.[edit]

Hi, RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WRDA_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=221697521 I think this case qualified for Speedy G7. What do you think? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possibly did, but I did not immediately see whetther it affected others' work or not, so I was being conservative. DGG (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Review[edit]

Hello DGG. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:DGG/RfA review, but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff WriteRead 11:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for Category:Flagged editors[edit]

Hello again, DGG ... At the risk of violating WP:CANVAS, would you care to comment on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Flagged editors?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 17:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are some problems with it., I think---see my comments there. DGG (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Roses Periago Page modified - Permissions asked[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirta_Roses_Periago Dear DDG, thanks for the clarification, I need to tell you that Permissions is processing the email from the webmaster of the page that authorize to use the information of their website. I´m not using any other user to upload content. Really I don´t know much about how to publish a biography here, I will take care and re do the article.

Please, could you tell me how to upload a photo?.

Regards --Martimyr (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started redoing the key parts of the article already, but it needs some of the other material filled in and my part upgraded--I was working in a hurry to prevent it from getting deleted. Please read see our Business FAQ again about why the sort of prose that works on a person's web page is usually not suitable for an article here, and why it is much better to rewrite. Then read WP:FIRST about our style of writing. We are an encyclopedia. We do not say that someone is important, but show it; we avoid using adjectives like "important"; we do not repeat the name frequently in the article; we write concisely; we use the Wikipedia names of affiliated organisations so they can be linked; we list only the major accomplisments and prizes; we give the career in chronological order. we do not necessarily list every minor position held; w do not go into background such as why the organisation she heads is important when it's as clearly obvious as the present article. So give it a try, in our style, not reinserting the material I deleted, and I'll take a look in a few ays and check it.
As for images, see WP:UPIMAGE and WP:IMAGES. It would be better to upload the image into the Commons so it can be used my multiple projects in other languages also. These pages explain how. DGG (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


DOE -- Stale AfD tags, no action[edit]

Hello, again. You were involved in AfD discussions for New York City DOE Region 1 through New York City DOE Region 10 (ten articles) with three AfD nominations each, last debated in February of 2008, recommending Keep. The final consensus was declared Merge, but nothing occurred after that. For the last four months, nine of the ten articles have been unchanged, sporting a big ugly AfD tag. Given the lack of action on the merge, is it kosher to remove the AfD tags now? In support of this action, an administrator removed the tag for the Region 1 article after a week's delay, but no action was taken on the others. I'm thinking four months is a sufficient waiting period and it is legitimate to remove the AfD tags. There isn't any obvious article to merge/redirect the articles to; an article was to be created or updated with content to cover the merge and it did not appear to have happened. Alternatively, a simple redirect to New York City Department of Education appears as the best merge candidate, but I'm not comfortable it is the correct solution indicated by the AfD discussion, including your own remarks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems, we did to forget to finish the job. I think the intention or at least the obviously best course will be to merge into one article for the regions, New York City DOE Regions. The merge to NYC DOE is a merge to a very complicated article, for an already over complicated series of administrative change and will just make it more confusing. The administrative structure during an important historical time is notable enough. The content that will need to be added is the geographic boundaries and the list of schools. The templates will be a bit of a problem. I think the best course would be to remove them entirely, given that there will be only one article, & change them into a table. If you like, just do it, at this point it's a purely routine function after the closure. Start a new article on the regions, and merge them, keeping the redirects, which deals with GFDL problems. I'll check after you. You dont need an administrator, but if you rather I do it, I will. DGG (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Edit wars across multiple articles[edit]

DGG, a series of edit wars stretching across a very large number of articles to do with ex-gay issues have recently begun. Whistling42, who was formerly 66.30.20.71, has insisted on changing the expression conversion therapy to reparative therapy, despite the fact that the sources of some of these articles refer to reparative therapy, not to conversion therapy. Several of these articles have already been changed back and forth several times. In the case of the article on Exodus International, I introduced a direct quote from Exodus, in the hope of ending the dispute. Knulclunk agreed with me that this was right, but Whistling42 removed the quote and reintroduced the misleading expression conversion therapy (I have notified Kukini about this, but his response was noncommittal).

In addition to this, Whistling42 has changed a sentence in the conversion therapy article sourced to Warren Throckmorton, in a way that effectively misrepresents Throckmorton's views. It concerns the difference between reparative therapy and other therapies concerned with sexual orientation issues. Whistling42's first choice of words was, 'Warren Throckmorton distinguishes what he calls "reparative therapy" from his own method, which he refers to as Sexual Identity Therapy.' This is misleading because Throckmorton did not coin the term "reparative therapy", and nor is he the only or the main person who uses it.

Whistling42 has denied trying to create the impression that Throckmorton is responsible for the term "reparative therapy", but that is nonetheless the impression that wording creates. More recently, Whistling42 has used the wording, 'Warren Throckmorton distinguishes methods that he considers to be "reparative therapy" from his own method, which he refers to as Sexual Identity Therapy.

This is again misleading, because it is the reparative therapists themselves who consider what they do reparative therapy, not Throckmorton (and also because Throckmorton does not regard sexual identity therapy as a way of changing sexual orientation). Whistling42 has done this because he or she does not consider Throckmorton's article a reliable source.

The reason why I am telling you about this is because you have dealt with issues on the primal therapy article that are somewhat similar to this one. The primal therapy page linked to an article about the history of primal therapy; you removed it because the article was unpublished and because no source was provided to show that its author was a reliable authority. My dispute with Whistling42 is partly about what counts as reliable sources for articles on controversial therapies. Skoojal (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look and given an opinion on what I see to be the issue. As I say there, I doubt you will find a single acceptable definition for anything in this area. DGG (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneyfacts.co.uk[edit]

Hi. I closed it as delete, and I salted to end this saga. I hope this is the right decision. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

given that two reasonably responsible people here said strong keep, and 2 others said keep, I doubt very much if it is the correct decision--especially the salting. When there is that much genuine disagreement, that's what non-consensus is for. There's a difference between COI support and support from established Wikipedians--that's why AfD is not a vote. If someone takes it to deletion review, as you say in the close you fully expect, I'll discuss it there. DGG (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so Phil did, and so I commented here. Thanks for letting us know. DGG (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I can't access the deletion review page because I'm on a silly public computer that is blocking the page for 'adult content' (low threshold for blocking pages, I think). So I can't comment on the deletion review. Would you mind putting a note on the deletion review to the effect that I welcome the review, and that what I wrote on the AfD when I closed it should serve as my reasons for my decision? - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done. weirdest adult-content block I've seen yet--who are these people (if you care to say)DGG (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small company in Australia called 'Escape'. Thanks for your help. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Request for userfication of deleted article The Fenians[edit]

Hi DGG, Could you please restore The Fenians to User:Low Sea/The Fenians. This article was SD about a year ago. The Fenians is a very notable celtic music band which is extremely well known in both America and Europe.

It looks like possibly the article's original author ran away, never to return, after his first experience as an editor here. It appears (per the logs) that about three weeks after joining WP he created the article/stub as his first (and only ?) contribution (at 18:38, 25 June 2007 [13]) and was swiftly newbie-bitten less than two days later (at 13:17, 27 June 2007[14]) with a CSD A7 that was actioned (at 10:40, June 27, 2007[15]) three hours before being notified on his talkpage that it was CSD tagged.

Thanks, Low Sea (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. It will quite obviously need some good referencing. DGG (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! I am an old fan of the Poxy Boggards who have opened for the Fenians in the past so I knew there was a problem when I saw this article was A7'd. See this brief list of pay-per-view refs which I found in about 15 seconds. There are similar pay-per-view article in the New York Times and some European media archives. I am hoping to find several free articles but if not I may ask for your help accessing online resources you might know of. Thanks again. Low Sea (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Scott Ferguson[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you could e-mail me the text of the deleted William Scott Ferguson. I'm assuming it's about the dead classicist, and I think I can cobble together a reasonable article about the guy. My e-mail is simply my Wikipedia username at gmail. Thanks in advance for your help. Ford MF (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

emailed, but i doubt it;'s the person you had in mind. Just write the article on the right guy. If it gets deleted by accident, let me know. DGG (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well thanks anyway. I guess I'll just have to start from scratch. Ford MF (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's not what I said[edit]

I don't think I said it applied to fictional characters, I did think it might but RHMED has explained it to me more several days ago thanks. I just said to User:Allemandtando it might apply to various kinds of cruft (however you define that), and linked him to WP:CSD so he could check it out for himself anyway and that he might consider using it as he had only used a prod before. Personally I wish it applied to more unencyclopedic stuff in general but hey I accept things as they are.:) Nor have I said any such thing to anyone who is my adoptee so please check your facts before accusing me of not being good to my adoptees as I try very hard to help them. If I have said any such thing to anyone listed as an adoptee of mine on my userpage, that was wrong of me and please let me know so I can inform them otherwise, but I don't think I have. They're more interested in userboxes.:) Sticky Parkin 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had adoptees, so I thought you and indirectly they might benefit from the advice. If I misunderstood I apologize. DGG (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, again...[edit]

...this time for your input on the Richard A. Houghten article. I will keep your advice in mind for future AfD nominations. I have withdrawn the nomination, as another editor has offered to rewrite it. You are welcome to speedy close the debate, if you are currently online. If not, please accept my thanks for your guidance here. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your coming here about this. thanks-- DGG (talk)

Valle Alto (Monterrey)[edit]

Hey, how are you doing? I'm writing you regarding the article Valle Alto (Monterrey) that I suggested for deletion. I would like you to reconsider your vote as the article is product of somebody living on that neighbourhood and just making an article of it; the zone is neither relevant by population density or economic importance and the informations is misleading at best but almost reaching to completely false. I just researched the official numbers from the municiplaity office and the neighborhood has a population of 16000 at the most and there is no economic data or research to sustain any of the claims in the article. Take care.--Aldoman (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checking esWP, seems you are right. Neighborhoods can be notable, but they need actual specific documentation. I commented there. DGG (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did you mean to endorse this?[edit]

[[16]] &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 16:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for catching my typo. it will be an interesting weekend, but I was planning other things than this. DGG (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


World Games 1997[edit]

This article as it stands at my restoration of it is pathetic as an article (looks like a substub), and should be redirected until it has some meaningful substance. While you are correct in noting that {{A3}} does not include a one-line description, there must be a better way of dealing with this type of article. The author even indicates that he/she will be editing slowly. We need a means to indicate this without active hand-holding: perhaps a template that indicates a title was redirected and why? Let me know your thoughts... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your redirect as the best course in such cases, and i probably should have added it myself. . Normally the first step is to ask the author to complete it, generally with the incentive of a PROD, but this is useless if the author is not around to fix it. & the author seems to have abandoned it since 2006. You are right that an underconstruction tag is the thing to do if it seems new and being actively worked on, and I often just replace the speedy tags with them, but that is only supposed to be used for a week or so & would not have helped here. I rechecked the template at the bottom--I just noticed now they were not articles, but just the linked years and places independently where the games were held--I suggest a TfD for it. So the redirect is the way to go, and has the advantage that if anyone every does come around, it can easily be reconverted to an article with the history intact. DGG (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crowley CSD[edit]

(Re: List of people with surname crowley) The rationale was provided on the talk page; no idea what the specific wiki-reason is for deleting an article that is a copy of the content on another page - but whatever that official reason is, it applies here. (ps. your edit on that page mangled the page a bit) Quaeler (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the one character typo. speedy does not apply to redundant pages--they are redirected not speedied.DGG (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DGG/Archive_17_Jun._2008&oldid=1142521169"