User talk:DGG/Archive 26 Mar. 2009

Intercultural Open University[edit]

I requested that this article be speedily deleted which you declined to do. I respectfully ask that you reconsider this article for deletion. It seems to be little more than a fraudulent scam. It's inclusion in Wikipedia affords it a measure of notability that it neither has nor deserves. A review of the history of the article shows that I started to clean up the article in good faith but that it soon became apparent that there were no supporting references other than those questioning it's status. I have added a Status section to the article.....

Status[edit]

The status of the Intercultural Open University is widely questioned with UNESCO citing it as an example of a "Dubious institutions with dubious professors furnished with titles or experience that somehow connect them with UNESCO. Example: Intercultural Open University:"^[1] The claimed accreditors are unrecognised and often based at the same address as the university.^[2]

^ UNESCO warning
^ Bears' guide to earning degrees by distance learning By Mariah P. Bear Published by Ten Speed Press, 2003 ISBN 1580084311, 9781580084314

If the article is not deleted I trust you will be able to actively support the inclusion of this section within the article. Lame Name (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete article[edit]

As originating authors, we agree with the editor that this article does not belong on Wikipedia. We do not want to get into an editing war over disputed information. We respectfully request that this article be speedily deleted from all of Wikipedia. Thank you.Stretch call (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We include unaccredited and even dubious universities if thy are notable. The article is checked to make sure the status is clear, and that controversies on the status are fully represented. . We would not usually have a separate section like this, but integrate it into the article if the material has support from 3rd party sources. . For further discussion, see the talk page of the articleDGG (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intercultural Open University Article continuing support of deletion[edit]

Intercultural Open University was completely reorganized in August of 2008. All faculty have doctorates from accredited institutions of higher education. The University recently applied for validation of programs from the Open University Validation system of the UK. Since the current article has edits from unidentified sources with outdated information, I recommend immediately deletion of the article.˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurlong (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you may nominate it for deletion. See WP:AFD for instructions. But the deletion reason you give at present is almost certain to be decisively rejected. Continue this on the article talk page or at afd, but not here. By the way, "applied for..." a credential is not the least the same thing as having one.DGG (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

continuing support of deletion[edit]

To address the issue that other contributors have not requested that the article be speedily deleted--it now seems that four (4) of contributors now respectfully request that this article be deleted.Stretch call (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFD. It does not meet any of the WP:CSD rules by which I myself could delete it without a community decision. DGG (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intercultural Open University Article[edit]

The original contributors all asked for this article to be deleted and you have declined. Since we are still on the Wikepedia site, we would like to call your attention to some matters that concern us very much. All of us have worked very hard to make this a very balanced and fair article. One of the problems that we have is that since August(08)IOU has undergone an adminstration change since the death of the founder. As a result, we do not have many third party sources for the article. The editor who was helping us did find two outdated (03-04) articles. The editor entered the articles as a status section that you approved, and I might add that we did not object to the entry. However, the entry was made with the same bias that often appears on the net. The Bear article is read in full, it also states that our founder in 2003 informed the authors that the mentioned associations were no longer in operation. As a result we added an updated status to the article and used the website references since the articles mentioned in the status section used the website for their information. The articles state this very clearly, but the editor took the liberty to only report the negative bias. In addition we find the editor's rhetoric quite inflammatory and judgmental when statements are made that we are not acceptable for Wikepedia and that the university borders on fraud. We feel a rush to judgment was made that could be quite hurtful to the life's work of many good people who have worked hard to make this not-for-profit foundation a positive force in distance education. IOU is registered under Dutch law as an educational foundation and is registered as a institution of higher education in nine other countries. Also we have found numerous double standards on Wikepedia in that we were asked to remove the faculty listing along with distinguished graduates because of the lack of notability. We did a Wikepedia search and found numerous educational institutions with such listing and no tags for changes or deletions. We have written the editor in question and expressed our thoughts. All contributors are willing to work with Wikepdeia to make this an acceptable article, but it must be fair and balanced on both sides.Stretch call (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just myself, but two other administrators have declined to delete it. We do not delete articles by administrative action if more than one person has contributed. There are several methods of deleting articles in WP. The appropriate one in your case is WP:AFD, and the community will make the decision, though it is only fair to tell you I shall oppose the deletion. You might first want to read WP:COI, and WP:Deletion policy. We do not delete articles because of POV problems. The article talk page is the place to discuss the content of the article. You say you want to improve the article, so do so. I will join the discussion there. I will just add, that the articles with notable graduates or faculty are those with graduates or faculty sufficiently notable to have WP articles about them: only those names may be added. And registration is not the same as accreditation. DGG (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecopass[edit]

Hi again. I would like your help with a never ending discussion going on in the Talk:Ecopass. The same kind of editorial disruption has also occurred with the same user in the series of articles regarding congestion pricing and road pricing. Just peek the Talk:Congestion pricing to have a taste of kind of questioning. I request your participation not as an administrator but rather because of your experience, deep knowledge of wiki policies, and used to deal with OR and non NPOV. Your orientation will be welcome, so please, drop by whenever you have some time.--Mariordo (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I will have time to examine this one properly--my apologies DGG (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorin (Dark Planet)[edit]

Greetings. I've re-prodded the article Sorin (Dark Planet) because there is nothing to merge it to. My intention isn't to break policy by re-prodding, hence this notice. BTW, you're right, I was rather pointy in some of my prods last month and I apologize for misdirecting my attempts at improving Wikipedia. Best wishes. --Boston (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

normally, one cannot reprod, & the way to do it is afd. But in this case it makes sense. I'm leaving it. I had apparently mistakenly thought the game was in wp. DGG (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intercultural Open University Article[edit]

Thank you for responding to our last exchange. The contributors will do all we can to make our article as fair and balanced as possible. What was not addressed was the "rush to judgment" of the editor of our article. All contributors felt that there was a bias position taken when one was not warranted. The contributors have never mentioned any type of accreditation in respect to the article. However, registeration(s) are important for this educational foundation. We defintely know the difference between accreditation and being registered. All contributors are educators with impeccable credentials.Stretch call (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

discussion belongs at the article talk p., and that's the end of it here. Expertise is not considered relevant here. COI is, however. DGG (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed your PROD of Vormsi enn[edit]

Hi DGG, what is going on? I'm surprised that YOU didn't check the talk page before your PROD action, I can hardly believe it. Best. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am not at all convinced of notability, but I should have seen your earlier prod. This is one of the times an English source would help. Based on analogy with US news sources, I have great doubts about the objectivity of a newspaper article on subjects like this--most are basically PR. . DGG (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I still sit with an impression, that you haven't read the talk page yet. I didn't PROD it first time, and an Estonian has confirmed notability there. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read it. It's always nice when someone calls me a deletionist. I am not convinced of notability, and not satisfied by the sourcing ,and I've tagged accordingly. Ghit counts for psychics does not prove notability. DGG (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks?[edit]

Hello, DGG, and thank you for your comments at orthomolecular medicine. I'm somewhat bemused, however, by what I perceive as a personal attack...on me...in your statement. What information, specifically, do you feel has been destroyed, and why do you accuse me of wanting to do this?

I fully realise that many personal battles have been played out between some of the parties involved, and that some rather strong language has been used by both sides on the talkpages. I've tried to stay out of this myself, I hope with some success. That's why I'm asking for clarification of your strong statements about my motivations and methods. Thank you in advance. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to the extent I may have had had someone particular in mind, it wasn't you. Can you think of a way I could make this clear with mentioning individuals?DGG (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. Feel free to delete this, since I thought you were talking about me. I just want to make clear that the actual merge was done by me with no off-Wiki encouragement or canvassing by anyone. If it's objectionable, then I expect consensus to prevail. I will now back away from the hornet's nest. Slowly.... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've adjusted what I said to be less ambiguous. DGG (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists killed[edit]

DGG you are one of the wizards in saving articles.I need a clarification please correct if I am wrong.Would a journalist killed in War like in Iraq or Sri Lanka whose deaths are noted be deleted.Can you take a look at this Punniyamurthy Sathyamurthy article and let me because I am planning to create articles for journalists killed in Iraq.There deaths are noted by international organisations as journalists.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is not enough to be a journalist killed in a war to be deleted. It is necessary at the very least to find substantial independent published coverage of either the person's prior journalism, or the death. Even if there is, the argument will be made that unless the prior journalism was notable, the dealt is simply ONEEVENT, and against our BLP policy. This can only be rebutted by providing really major coverage on an international basis, enough to show that the death was sufficiently notable that even that one event is encyclopedic. One way of wording it, is why should his death be more notable than that of anyone else in the way? Some people go further, and would say that not even the widest possible coverage of the death would defeat one event would make him notable--I think that's a perversion of the intent of the policy, but expect such an argument. My opinion is that the article referred to is in practice not going to be kept, and I would not spend the time on others unless there is much stronger material. DGG (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eleazar (painter)[edit]

Hi, thanks for your opinion and for giving me the chance to recreate my article. Because of the recommendation of Chick Bowen, I want to ask you if it's possible to rewrite my article because I'm not allowed to do it; this is what Chick Bowen said about the recreation: "Recreation permitted, but will have to be a sourced, neutral article. If the subject wishes to proceed with recreation, he is urged to seek help from other editors to ensure that conflict of interest is avoided. It would be much better if someone other than the subject wrote it; perhaps someone commenting below would like to do so?" Thanks again. A greeting from Barcelona, Spain.--Eleazar1954 (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-created the article in my user space as User:DGG/Eleazar (painter). First step is to add specific references to reviews of his shows or specific paintings in published sources-- please do this--you can edit that page. For now, have removed the paragraphs discussing the general features of the oeuvre, but they will appear in the edit view between a  mark as comments; they must be supported by specific references and rewritten as quotations from those references. The items in the references section must be moved to the places in the text that they support. I recognize you are in a sense uniquely qualified to comment on this--but it can't be written that way. I've also cleaned up a little. See what you can do with references & I will take a look in a few days.. DGG (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, many thanks for the re-creation of the article. I think it’s OK. I have add a Curriculum Vitae reference for supporting what the article explains about exhibitions and collections of Eleazar. Finally, I haven’t put any more specific references or reviews because all are write in paper (not Internet references apart from those that you write and the reviews in the Website of the artist). I hope that everything it’s OK for you.Really thanks again and a greeting.--Eleazar1954 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

== Noreaster speedy close ==

It's moot now -- the article's been recreated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing edits from Canadian IP[edit]

Take a look Enigma^msg 04:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hardblocked, and edits deleted. Semiprotected for a little while as well. DGG (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, although it appears to be a softblock. I would actually suggest a hardblock in this case. Not sure who it is, but it seems to be an especially nasty one. Enigma^msg 05:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold knowledge[edit]

I'm not interested. If other users want to keep this kind of article, that's up to them. Presumably you looked at it and made your decision; I looked at it and made mine.

If you look at my talk page, you'll see lots of examples of people moaning about their articles being deleted and lots of other examples of me having a proper discussion with them, restoring articles and helping contributors to improve them. I stand by everything I've said on the subject. Deb (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, thank you for your input in this case. I hope I was able to proceed through procedures in a level-headed manner. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at User talk:Deb#Threshold knowledge and, if you feel it would be of value, offer a second opinion. Although perhaps nothing more really should be said... Bondegezou (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning response!![edit]

Could you explain me why you gave me that warning?
I don't understand, I'm contributing with useful information on Portugal Golf Courses and your just deleting without any sense at all.
This is a very useful and non commercial information. I think all readers will be thankful for that information. Please don't delete it.
But once again, why you want to delete the golf course articles? And help at least try to help me or give some guidance if I'm doing something wrong!

Andrett (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

responded to there. DGG (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notablility (populated places)[edit]

I would like to draw your attention to this discussion. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. DGG (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold knowledge[edit]

I'm not interested. If other users want to keep this kind of article, that's up to them. Presumably you looked at it and made your decision; I looked at it and made mine.

If you look at my talk page, you'll see lots of examples of people moaning about their articles being deleted and lots of other examples of me having a proper discussion with them, restoring articles and helping contributors to improve them. I stand by everything I've said on the subject. Deb (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, thank you for your input in this case. I hope I was able to proceed through procedures in a level-headed manner. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at User talk:Deb#Threshold knowledge and, if you feel it would be of value, offer a second opinion. Although perhaps nothing more really should be said... Bondegezou (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

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

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you didn't know! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation[edit]

Thank you for your comments. You are correct - I was taunted, but it would have been wise of me to have held my reply for one day before (not) sending it. On the other note, if I am rescuing an article, I will almost always improve the article before removing the Prod. If I remove the article without improvements (which is rare) I do state my reasons. I have taken heart of your friendly communication, and I appreciate your helpful comments.Esasus (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tobias[edit]

You participated briefly but succinctly in the AfD for this back in January of 2008; but it's still a puling mass of self-serving publicist's swill, a hagiography of a minor figure. Could you have a hack at the weasel-words and fluff? I've reached my overdose limit for treacle. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

halfway there. DGG (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarysky[edit]

Please read before taking any action. Although the theory and belief was sound, the situation has changed. He should be indef now, but for different reasons even though it is all the same result regardless. I guess the matter is now moot. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Mahmoud[edit]

Sorry - I pasted in the wrong translation link. Fixed now. This one is annoying. The subject seems to be a prominent and respected author, but the content almost entirely relies on a self-published bio. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Los Angeles[edit]

I was surprised to see that UCLA page is nonexistent now. Would you please look into this? Salih (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's there for me. [1] for the redirect and [2] for the actual page, with the boxes at the bottom for all the subarticles. DGG (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's there now. I checked the history of the page and found that for some time the page was under the name University of Califoornia, Loos Angeles!! Salih (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross[edit]

SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for a well written, level headed response to the template discussion at WP:EL. You made the point I was trying to make about the value of such links and templates much better than I ever could have.DCmacnut <> 03:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:J G Howes[edit]

I know what a Doppleganger account is, but this an unregistered account. Everyone can still use it for impersonation should they want to.--Sloane (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook[edit]

Excuse me?? You have no right to speak to other editors like that and tell them what or what they should not be doing. I've contributed more to this project as an encyclopedia than you ever will and am clearly permitted to talk to friends on here amongst my editing. I hate facebook and twitter so I take that as an insult especially as my conversation was mostly about developing wikipedia. If anybody makes an unfounded comment that indicates I or somebody else is just sitting around talking or am somehow idle or unconstructive rather than editing the encyclopedia then I will become pretty annoyed. Please do not insult what I do here again particularly when the vast majority of my time on here is spent editing the encyclopedia on a large scale. Clearly I am permitted to have breaks, especially when much of the converstation was about expanding wikipedia. If you can't accept this and that editors are permitted to have some fun then stick to being a grumpy old librarian. If your comment was in anyway intended to "direct" us to not engage in conversation and edit the encyclopedia then this is out of order and am surprised an experienced editor like yourself would feel he is in a position to tell others what they should tak about on here. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive given you my opinion. it was not a formal warning. It was intended as a suggestion not an insult. I apologize if it was taken that way. DGG (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know why you felt it necessary to say anything though. Sure you can think it, I don't know why you thought it was appropriate to leave a comment though. I have created around 50,000 articles for wikipedia, more than anybody and while I like to talk sometimes, too much sometimes it helps me enjoy this site and in turn to stay here and produce more content. I feel I am entitled to talk especially with the workload I have on here, besides many editors spend their time at ANI engaging in often pointless discussions. In reality I concentrate on the encyclopedia more than most people who use this site for sure. Thats why I found your comparison to facebook as if I am one of the newbies who arne't aware what this project is about an an encyclopedia somewhat of an insult, when I'm trying as hard as anybody to improve our coverage. Amidst my facebook discussions I was in the middle of starting articles like Djérem and working towards improving our coverage in places in Africa by developing the various administrative divisions of each country. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am not sure how good an example it is for others. DGG (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well one could say the same about the time you spend at articles for deletion that it isn't setting a constructive example to an encyclopedia needing considerable development. You don't see me criticising people who spend their time there or in endless discussion at ANI while I get on and edit the encyclopedia itself. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, I think its exactly what people ought to do once they get a little experience: just as important to save the usable articles already here as to add new ones, though it is a little less fun & much more frustrating. And I haven't stopped working in article space, you know, but I tend to work on the bottom layer, so there will be a decent base for people improving them later. As for AN/I, I'm not there all that much, as compared to where my experience would be more useful, at RSN & related noticeboards. We need a wide distribution of what parts of Wikipedia people work on, & I'm grateful for the work that others do in areas I wouldn't touch. the point is that I follow up my wikifriendships off-wiki. Conflicts seem to be what end up here. Perhaps we should call a truce. You have my apology. You were basically right that I shouldn't have commented as I did. DGG (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, anyway nuff said about it. Just try to be little more careful what you post in the future as it may be misinterpreted and I'll try to cut back on the chit-chat. I would sincerely hope that my editing would be a very good example to anybody following me itself and would outweigh any perceieved negativety on talk pages. Regards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - March 2009[edit]

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air France Robbery (1967) article[edit]

Hello,

I noticed that you removed the deletion notice on the Air France Robbery (1967) article. I understand that the event is most likely real, and there should be existing references in newspapers and biographies as you mention on your edit.

Would it be possible for you to add such references into the article? It seems you are quite knowledgeable about the topic, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to fix the article by adding some real references and explaining how is it that there are so many details of a crime for which nobody ever got prosecuted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskilian (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the basic refs are in the article for Hill. I added one of them. Nobody ever got prosecuted because Hill turned stool pigeon about much more serious crimes. DGG (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help?[edit]

Hi David, I recently blocked an anon. IP, and I then realized that part of my understanding of what had happened was wrong. I'd like to lift the block ASAP, but can't find the button to do that! Is there a way to lift a block "out of process," or do I have to go through the unblock rigamarole? -Pete (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

go to the anon's contribution list, select block log from the menu at the top, and then after the entry there's a place to click "unblock", and, a new feature, a place to click "change block". DGG (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all set. Many thanks for the quick reply! -Pete (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comments on Others[edit]

I didn't call you a "dick" that came from a post, somewhere above, copied by User:Pohick2. I did call him a "dick", while linking to WP:DICK, but only because it was necessary. My apologizes for the confusion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 9, 2009 @ 22:22

Yes, I know you weren't saying it about me. I was advising you to to say it about anyone, at least not on my talk page. Oddly, the practice here is that this doesnt actually count as abuse, but it never helps and is never necessary, no matter whether or not deserved. DGG (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try not to use it at all (as I normally do). On a side point, where it is used by me above, was copied from User:Pohick2's talk page. I never actually posted on your talk page until this evening. Again, my apologizes for the confusion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 9, 2009 @ 22:42

some comments of yours[edit]

Hi. I saw your comments re A Nobody at his editor review and think you covered a lot of what I'm seeing. I don't agree with his, or your, stance on inclusion criteria; I don't see you as disruptive while I consider him quite so. My core issue with him is what you addressed, not his inclusion stance. Casliber is quite inclusionist, is one of my mentors, and I get along with him just fine. I'll keep an eye out for an area where you an I might work well together. That said, it won't be soon as I'm otherwise focused lately (which is a short-term thing). Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will very gladly work with you, or anyone else who is open to compromise in getting issues resolved. I appreciate your offer. DGG (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terima kasih (Indonesian for Thank you). Let me know of any areas you think might be productive. I am a reasonable fellow; convincing a fair number of folk of that is the only only way a ban is ever lifted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am happy to work constructively with anyone and I created Moon of Pejeng as a good faith gesture in that direction. The subsequent rant against me was out of line and counterproductive. I am more than happy to help you work on articles; I am not interested in being talked down however, because I can and will take criticisms from Casliber and DGG as valid, but I cannot from you given your history, so let them tell me anything of note and I'll gladly avoid lecturing to you. Now if you want more help with articles, drop me a line. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of authors[edit]

hey DGG check this out:

First off, probably a bad idea to start off your post with "what is your problem"....just saying. Second, it is a personal call of whoever reviews the page. I didn't think it was notable. The deleting admin might, ya never know. When you make pages, you should add as much information, references, and sources as you can so it doesn't get marked for deletion. -NeutralHomer March 8, 2009 @ 23:25 Jane Cooper I just don't think a page with 3 paragraphs of information and a couple lists with very little references and some Google Books links makes a page necessary. Again, this is a personal call. -NeutralHomer March 9, 2009 @ 01:40

Like I said, it is a personal call. When someone is reviewing pages on "New Page" patrol, it is their call on what they think is notable. That differs from person to person. What I might think is notable, might be completely different from what the admin reviewing my call thinks is notable....or the person also watching the "New Page" section. It is a personal call. User:Neutralhomer March 9, 2009

I see no "unpleasant pushback". You are upset that your page might be deleted and you are taking it out on the person who has nominated your page for deletion. If that is "unpleasant pushback", well, I think I have had worse. I stand by my call and will not be changing it unless there is information added to the page. - NeutralHomer March 9, 2009

Please see The Zax. NeutralHomer March 9, 2009

lol "I stand by my call and will not be changing it" me too pohick (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since that was a little over your head, WP:DICK might be a little easier for you to understand. User:Neutralhomer March 9, 2009

lol, answering my question, your problem is an idee fixe, and lack of vocabulary pohick (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems someone knows some French, problem with that is, this is the English Wikipedia. Also, nothing is "dominating" my mind for "especially for a prolonged period" as I have long since moved on to other things here on Wikipedia and you are still talking about the same thing. -User:Neutralhomer March 9, 2009

I suppose i must put Notable American author in the text, to make the assertion? pohick (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great difference between being notable enough to avoid deletion, and the very minimal amount of indication of possible notability that must be indicated to escape speedy deletion. Saying that a person has published a book other than a self-published book is enough to imply possibly notability as an author, and passes speedy. Ir may or may not pass AfD, but that's another matter, based on the rules for creative professionals. . Saying that someone is a professor at a college is enough to pass speedy. it may or may not be enough to pass afd, depending on the rules for WP:PROF.

The very first version of Thomas Swiss, [3] is fully enough to give some indication of notability and pass speedy. As for AfD, Iowa is a flagship university, and in fact one of the leading universities for the teaching of creative writing. A full professor there with multiple books by established academic publishers will almost certainly pass AfD as well.

Dennis Covington , also passes speedy, as the author of possibly significant published works. Whether he will pass afd is possible, but it will depend on reviews of his works. Similarly for Robert Lacy. Mark Levine (poet) very likely will pass afd, as there is at least one reliable good review, from PW.

Speedy deletion is NOT for when an editor thinks something isn't notable. Prod and afd are for that purpose. Speedy is for when there is no plausible indication whatever of notability. all 4 of these articles unquestionably had some indication of that, enough to pass speedy. i dont thing any admin wouldhave speedy deleted them--at least I hope not. I'll comment more specifically at whatever afds get placed. DGG (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG, I had previously posted to Neutralhomer, so I thought I let you now for whatever it is worth that he didn't post here at all, but all above is quoted from Pohick2's talk page who brought it here.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i pasted his comments for flavor (sorry if any confusion): Robert Lacy got speedy deleted, but restored upon appeal to the admin, AfD discussion here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lacy (2nd nomination); all the others havn't been nominated for AfD (yet). pohick (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented a weak keep at Lacy; I have not fully investigated Covington; I hope the others will not be nominated as they will almost surely pass afd. The afds will be the place for further discussion, not here. DGG (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

Hi DGG. Hope this doesn't seem like a routine admin request. I was hoping for your views at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Primary sources. This attempt to gain consensus was sparked by the example in my latest comment. I think that editors should be actively encouraged to back up secondary sources with the primary for simple, isolated facts that may be reported incorrectly in secondary sources. What do you think? Bongo matic 01:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith in Place[edit]

Just a note that an article whose AfD you commented in is now the topic of a Deletion for Review discussion. Deor (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else sort of signing as you?[edit]

Hey. I'm not really sure how to handle this or if I'm just being overly weird, but I wanted to bring this to your attention. User:Milker has been signing their posts as DGG; see this edit. It could just be a coincidence that they want to use the same initials or abbreviation, but I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. If it's your doppleganger or public account, then sorry for being paranoid. Any ideas? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's not me in an alternate account. I see just that one post, and the first paragraph of what you cited is something I have frequently said, perhaps once in the exact same words. I think it might be a copy and he meant to attribute the argument to me in some fashion. However, I've never used the example he gave, nor do I work in the same area. I will follow this up--thanks for noticing , since I might never have done so.DGG (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms[edit]

It so happens my alias is the same as yours. I changed it now.--VGG (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response[edit]

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

Long-winded, sorry. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Are these necessary? I imagine you are watching my Talk page at this point. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I watch about 250 user talk pages. (in addition to the same number of troublesome ips & spammers); all my friends, for example, and everyone for a few days after a message in case they reply there. I must admit, I dont always get to actually check them all, so it is a good idea to leave a talkback so I know to give it priority. .... DGG (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new p.[edit]

Thank you for your help, I am new to wikipedia, and any suggestions/help is appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comscholar (talk • contribs) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALERT!![edit]

I am having some computer problems, and using a slower machine this week. Don't expect as much as usual... DGG (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Magician's Apprentice[edit]

You said that it's reasonable to assume that there were reviews, and I could only find one--from Publishers Weekly--stating that it "fails to distinguish itself from other magical coming-of-age tales" and although the main character is a "sympathetic protagonist, Canavan never manages to make the world and other characters distinctive or memorable." I was unable to find anything else (that didn't originate from a blog), although my search could have missed something. However, knowing that she IS a bestselling author it would make sense to wait, as it has only been two and a half weeks since its release. I really didn't think that a single bad review (and the only one from a reputable source that I could find) would make an book notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, though. How long do you suppose I should wait before considering its deletion again? DreamHaze (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we have never said a book has to be good to be notable. Normally, for most books I would wait till 2 months after publication, then check google News archive , not google, for reviews--it screens out most of the junk. (Google news archive , not google news, because google News goes back only 30 days.) If they are not there by then for new fiction, they won't be. But I've been thinking about this one since I deprodded it--for children's books, the reviews usually come out faster, because they're done from pre-publication copies, so the libraries can have them when people ask for them. This one may never become as popular--or all the fans may buy it anyway & it will get belated reviews as the reviewers catch up. There's an alternative that I suggest--merge the material into the article for the series, including the link to the review--and even a quote from it-- and make the article into a redirect. If more reviews come out, its easy to put it back again. If you need help with that, just ask. DGG (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't sound rude in my first message, I re-read it and I realized it sounded a lot more frustrated than I felt. When I talked about the review being bad I didn't mean that the fact that it was bad made it non-notable, but in conjunction with the lack of reviews, news, and sourceable material it didn't help any. I think that a merge would be a good idea. It would give me a chance to do some work on the series' article, and it would keep it prepared just in case it does end up becoming popular. Thank you--I'll keep you in mind if I have any trouble. C: DreamHaze (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not the least rude--I am glad your wrote, because this had stayed in my mind as one of my more dubious decisions, and I might never have actually gotten back to it. DGG (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eleazar[edit]

Hello, I want to ask you if there has been any problem with the re-creation of the article that you rewrote about Eleazar (painter)User:DGG/Eleazar (painter). In any case, I want you to know that I already did (added) what you said to me. See you,--Eleazar1954 (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On William Timmons[edit]

DGG, I'm in need of some advice from an admin, but I don't know many, so you're it. I've been blocked twice recently by User:Ruslik0 for my work on William Timmons; most recently for a single revert of a revert, and before that when I was short of 3RR violation and my "opponents" had about 2 and 4 each. On my talk page he has expressed a siding with the opinion of those I'm haggling with. I've been very active on the article and its talk page for months, trying to resolve a mess that was caused largely by User:Collect but now being supported by User:THF and sometimes another guy. We just got a couple of new opinions there to the effect that my version is OK, so I put it back (it had been reverted this morning). This may be seen as again violating Ruslik0's "suggestion" that I rspect a 0RR rule. If he steps in again, after I've asked him to recuse himself based on his expressed siding with the other guys, would you be so kind as the talk to him or something. Any advice would be appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are sufficiently vindicated; let the details be. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed my opinion because I believe that the Dicklyon's variant may violate WP:BLP. Dicklyon is actually trying to create an impression that Timmons held the same position as Thurmond and it was he (Timmons) who made the decision to deport Lennon. However there is no evidence was for the former, and the latter is not true too (Mitchell probably made a decision). So I stated that I thought that the THF' variant was less problematic from point of view of the BLP. Regards, Ruslik (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relevant BLP consideration for anyone in a political administration or career, short of a downright lie or purely gratuitous abuse. There is a NPOV consideration, of reporting fairly. As for my own views, Ruslik0, we read it differently. I have commented further at the article talk p. DGG (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, mind if I respond to Ruslik here? I'm not trying to create any impression; quite the contrary, all of my edits have been to make the article less opinion-based and more just reporting what's in reliable sources. Saying that the memos were found via an FOIA request, which is what they were most recently objecting to, is in no way going to create any impression about Timmons's motivations. Same with the previous rounds of objections by Collect, who didn't want to say there was a failed deportation attempt, and didn't want to say that it related to the upcoming Nixon re-election campaign; I just want to report on the existence of these memos to and from Timmons, what they were about, and how they came out, since that turns out to be a topic on which there's more published than anything else related to Timmons. I have carefully addressed every BLP and RS complaint; the current complaints about so-called "SYN" and "COATRACK" are nonsense, and the complainer won't even specify why he keeps saying those terms, simply claiming that he has explained it before; as an attorney, he knows when he's out of evidence, and resorts to other tactics. It's really quite annoying that he does so, and that you interfered by blocking one side in a content dispute. Dicklyon (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now that THF has summarily reverted again and still doesn't provide any detail about why, how do you two suggest we proceed? I'd be happy to try another RfC, but we only brought in one new opinion last time around, and THF is happy to ignore him. Or we could try mediation. Or what? Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we will continue to discuss the issue on the talk p. DGG (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A favor?[edit]

Based on your comment in the JJ Greenberg AfD [4], would you kindly review the prod on Virginia Admiral? There is a link on the discussion page to make it easier.
Thanks. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a full obit, so of course she;s notable. And the reason she got a full obit, is because she has paintings in major permanent museum collections, which is the basic criterion for creative artists. Now just remove the prod and add the information about her career to the article.DGG (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

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

Cerejota (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of neopets species[edit]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Robofish (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q about PROD contest on Line 3, Guangzhou Metro[edit]

Less concerned about the notability issue than the travel guide aspect of it... any thoughts?

Thanks. MLauba (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a travel guide to me means directions from one place to another, and quality rankings of places. This information is however just about this particular metro line--there is more that can and should be said, see for example a more fully developed article like F (New York City Subway service) . You see that the individual stations are normally considered each to merit an article. Where the disputed territory is now, is bus routes.DGG (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I'll keep that in mind for the future. Cheers. MLauba (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani article[edit]

Hi. I went back and looked at that article and I still have no idea who this guy is. The titling convention is wrong, the author chose to identify everyone by meaningless initials and the best guess I can make is that he's some sort of judge. I'm not de facto against this article, but it's nearly useless in its current state. I'll gladly write a quick stub about this guy regardless of knowing zilch about the Pakistani judicial system, but the existing title would make a very implausible redirect. I'll let you know when I'm done. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just Googled the name and I've come up with practically nothing on this person beyond a couple of casual mentions in news articles. Nothing biographical whatsoever. A lot of his other similar contributions have been speedied and he's created yet another unreferenced stub. Notability is established and I hope to do better with this one. I've offered him some advice on his talk page as well. I hope it'll help. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a problem article. May people in India & Pakistan seem to have inherited the British habit of referring to distinguished people with initials instead of first names, and in a larger countries like theirs' it is particularly difficult. There are also no usable central newspaper and periodical indexes that I'm aware of, even in print, & publishing generally is decentralized and chaotic. We are going to have to someone get some more info on Justice (Retd) M.A. Rasheed. DGG (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twofer[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UMAUD Environment and Natural Resources studies is now ready for comments, and I'd love to learn more about where to draw the line on db-spam for articles that have a promotional tone but are for non-profit or educational programs or purposes. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia county/city NRHP lists[edit]

Hi ... I'm responding to your message on my talk page. I consolidated the content of (I think) 23 individual Virginia county/city NRHP pages onto the main Virginia NRHP page. At first, in an effort to clean up after myself, I was creating redirects on the original county/city pages, but then thought it might be best to just delete them. I created all of the original pages relatively recently and I don't think they have many incoming links (if they have any at all). If you feel that it would be best to set up the redirects instead, I suppose I could do that. My recent work has also rendered the following pages obsolete:

National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties A-B
National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties C
National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties D-G
National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties H-M
National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties N-R
National Register of Historic Places listings in Virginia, Counties S-Z

I was planning on tagging them for deletion. Do you think it preferable to redir them to the Virginia NRHP page instead? --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is something which should be decided at the project. I'm not centrally involved on these, just came across some on WP:CSD. My feeling on things like this is that they should be uniform across WP for the US, and this is better than working out each state by logic one at a time. DGG (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new category for SURVIVORS of the Holocaust[edit]

Hi DGG: Regarding the two CfDs at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Holocaust victims and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 12#Category:Nazi concentration camp victims, while I agree that the categories need to be sharpened, but if they are going to become categories about people who DIED only in Category:People who died in The Holocaust and Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps respectively, then in all fairness and following good logic and historiography, following that reasoning, there should now therefore be two categories. ONE for those who DIED and one for those survivors who LIVED such as Category:Holocaust victims who survived and Category:Survivors of Nazi concentration camps that would allow for that. I am positive you will agree and kindly take a look at the two above CfD discussions again and note that that should be so, that both those who died and those who survived and lived, and who were/are of course notable, such as Elie Wiesel; Joel Teitelbaum; Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam and many others that I know as being important to Jewish history, and there are many others like this from many other groups. It would be a great shame and travesty if those names were expunged only "because" they survived and escaped the fate the Nazis had wanted for them by having lived and not died in the Holocaust and/or the death and concentration camps. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

responded there--we seem to already have something suitable. DGG (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen L. Robinson[edit]

I have made a couple comments to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson. Unless someone requests userfication or something happens before the primary or something happens other than her winning the primary that makes this person notable, my comments won't have any practical impact. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity question[edit]

With regards to your comment here, I'm curious as to where you went to school for secondary and tertiary education. I'm just purely curious because of thinking about this debate—you don't need to tell me if you'd rather not, but I thought I'd ask in case you can give me more info to consider. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked at an Ivy for many years, and its the prep school that counts. DGG (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on proposal[edit]

Hi, as you participated in the village pump discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to this proposal. Further input is welcome. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day![edit]

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama[edit]

I have an outline of a lengthy and legitimate article at User:THF/Obama with not a single "nutball conspiracy theory" in it. I'll draft it off-wiki this weekend. I encourage editors to participate in this project by sending me sources (or perhaps fully drafted paragraphs) rather than battling at DRV or on the Talk:Obama page about intermediate stages. If we present a fully-sourced, well-written neutral article, there shouldn't be a problem -- and if there is, it will be pretty damning of Wikipedia. THF (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks against the Messiah at the Gates of Rome[edit]

Dear DGG, the Messiah at the Gates of Rome is again being attacked and harassed. Please come help. Thank you, Das Baz 16:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Islam and civil rights[edit]

Hi. I'm puzzled that you de-prodded Islam and civil rights. I thought the purpose of a prod was to make it clear that there are potentially fatal problems with an article that can however be fixed, and to put pressure on the authors to do so. It's not a subject I know much about but I can spot POV at a thousand paces. I was rather pleased with how politely I'd expressed this in the prod - not my usual snarl, at all. No point in biting newbies but rules is rules and as it stands the article is horrible. That's what prodding is for.

BTW this is one of a group of related articles created or edited by the same small group of people (or just one person with several hats). All claim to be "constructed by students working on a university project" although there's no evidence of it and if so it's a pretty poor course. Copyvios and POV abound. Have a look at User_talk:Vote_Cthulhu, Talk:Hinduism_and_science and the articles edited by 134.154.240.39, for example.

So pretty please, re-prod it. :-)

andy (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you think the article is fixable, tag it with a cleanup tag. If you think it is not, send it to AfD. PROD is when you want to delete an article & think it will be uncontested. DGG (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I've never seen it in those terms. It's not what the prod notice itself says ("If you can address this concern... please edit this page and do so... etc") and I've prodded articles plenty of times then de-prodded them when the author woke from his slumber and fixed it. OK, I know it's supposed to be for "uncontroversial" deletions but the notice that the author sees says, essentially: hey, fix it!, and prod is definitely not just for uncontested deletions - that's clear from WP:PROD. So go on, do, just re-prod it and see if anyone bothers to fix it. Go on, please... andy (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it works that way also--as does afd,. Deletion is not supposed to be for improving articles, but the threat of deletion does sometimes work very effectively. It only works, of course, if the The prod notice is meant to be different from the speedy notice, in explicitly permitting the author to remove it. As for actions, why not talk to Hsharif324 and ask him if he needs help to complete the article? There's no need to poke him into working on it, because he is working on it. It's a new article. He was working on it yesterday.If you cannot help him, at least let him continue. There is no deadline. Personally, I think it takes more than 5 days to write an article like this properly. DGG (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln High School (West Virginia) Prod[edit]

Just so you know, I left this somewhat incoherent message at the author's talk page. I don't know if there is something short with better wording that can be inserted, but I wanted to make sure the new editor got a somewhat personal message, hoping to stave off frustration and abandonment. Thanks for deprodding it.74.69.39.11 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Criticism of Barack Obama[edit]

As you are an experienced editor, I would like to ask some advice. Is this article a lost cause? What would be some constructive ways forward? Or, is this somthing to leave alone. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's partly the cumulation of general frustration about all the articles on the campaign, which have been a disgrace since the primaries started, partly a reaction to the utter idiocy and malevolence of some of the actual criticism & to the bigoted way that other sources are handling it, and partly that we simply do not know what to do about articles of that sort. I could argue either side of the matter. I just now said what I had to say about the article. My advice to you, is that perhaps someone who can write intelligently about topics that are much under-represented in Wikipedia might want to go back to them, rather than american politics. DGG (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question....[edit]

There was a real misunderstanding on that issue between his username and the fact his article had been tagged as vandalism. I really screwed it up, but I hope I set it straight. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

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

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lidia Rudnicka[edit]

Not in your capacity of admin, but as someone who knows how to find out if a person's academic work is cited and significant, could you take a look at Lidia Rudnicka? Thanks, Bongo matic 11:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article a bit. The major notability is probably not trichology, a much more problematic article. She seems to be borderline by international research standards--the question is whether her admin post as chair at her university is sufficient. DGG (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obliged, sir. Bongo matic 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV[edit]

Hi DGG
I have a question about DRV, and I had noted you down as my go-to guy for that :)
I was approached by Smanu (talk · contribs) who wants to create the article The Best Damn Tour. It was (AfDed 15 months ago and indef protected following a number of recreations. The AfD was before the tour started, and from a couple of references that are a available now (see my talk) I think that one could build an article now that passes WP:N.
I'm not quite sure how we usually handle cases like these here. I was thinking about just unprotecting it since, from all I can tell, the concerns from the AfD no longer apply. I asked MangoJuice who closed the AfD for his blessing, but he thinks I should take it through DRV. He's right that it's been effectively salted, but I still find it unnecessary since I expect a SNOWed "allow recreation".
I've only been at DRV a few times, so as I said I'm unsure how this is usually handled. Does this need discussion there, or can I just unprotect it?
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways to go: 1/expand the section in The Best Damn Thing until it obviously shows notabillity, or 2/create the proposed article in user space. You have the right to unprotect, but we try to avoid such conflicts between admins, tho it does not amount to wheel-warring unless he reverts you. Perhaps when he's shown the full new article he'll change his mind. Otherwise, DRV is least likely to get involved in secondary arguments. I seem to remember there have been other problems here with articles relating to that singer. DGG (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who protected it is actually no longer active, so it's a bit more complicated. :) Usually, if an article is recreated (outside G4) we don't ask many question, so I thought it's a bit of a waste going through DRV. But of course if there have been long term problems in that area (which of course is likely with an indef protected redirect) then it's certainly the right forum after all.
Thanks! Amalthea 18:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

when the admin isnt around (sorry, I though t you meant it was Mangojuice) normally one just unprotects according to ones own judgment. The practice of not undoing each other is to reduce conflict among the admins who are around. But if Mangojuice felt DelRev was best he may have been remembering what i am half-remembering.DGG (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

glad to hear that...[edit]

you're all fixed :) I was in the same boat this time last year and I still <3 my new toy StarM 00:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more or less working , anyway. DGG (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rousso[edit]

I know dang well a lot of the skeletons, as I was a stamp dealer at the time. Most, however, was not published in an RS available online, and the major stamp weekly got lots of ad money from him - even though its customers did not buy <g>. The court records are "primary sources" which means that WP does not like using them. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florentina Mosora[edit]

Hi DGG, would you mind having a look at this AfD? I'm vacillating between delete and keep myself and your input would be appreciated. --Crusio (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYC[edit]

Sorry, broke my leg a few weeks back and am laid up, so I'll be out of action for a bit. Good luck with it. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Look[edit]

Hi David Can you give this another look, per the point I raise. If you find reasonable academic substantiation, please let me know and I'll change my vote accordingly. I suspect that you share my concerns regarding using the wiki to publish OR. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

look I did. DGG (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak and regular[edit]

I'm not sure how to sort this vote out [5]. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but this part seems like a second vote: "*Keep as an actress, as having played major roles in multiple films. As a scientist "e Chair of Oceanography[4] at the University of Liè" would seem notable. Getting a complete list of citations in this subject for European work of the period is a little iffy--I'll see what I can do." Was it left by someone else? Am I missing something. Not a big deal to me. I think you deserve two votes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified it to a straight keep. DGG (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hypercubist[edit]

So what is the point of the talk page if no communication happens? Once again my page is deleted even though I believe the argument stands. I am defining a term used in a contest, and even eliminated the sponsors name. No one has ever launched a vehicle in North America this way, but we can't have a wiki article on it? Could my points on the talk page even be addressed? I guess because I'm new, I don't count? Please respond and allow the page to stand.

regards

Mackb1991 (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Brian MacKayMackb1991 (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had replied, at some length, with some positive suggestions, at User talk:Brianmackay, the account you used to write the article. See my explanation there, and an addendum this morning. Considering that the entire thing is, " an online “audition” which requires participants to continually update their own contest web page and demonstrate both creativity and social networking skills" I view the article as an attempt to use Wikipedia as part of this campaign. We can continue the discussion there. You have a choice of following my advice for how to write an acceptable article, or making use of WP:Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited![edit]

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are giving me conflicting information[edit]

Eustress tells me a separate page is necessary, you tell me not to do it. Can you two figure this out please and get back to me. I can't do both. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is no other such article in Wikipedia. Anyway, all you have to do to recover the material is get the right version in the edit history and copy from there. I will continue on the talk p. of the article. DGG (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is: Howard Adelman, from which Eustress removed all the list of references during a GA review for that article and created a new List of works by Howard Adelman. I created the list page for Wengert using exactly the same format and language Eustress used. MY preference was to keep them in the article about the author of them, but I was told this was inappropriate. Is it asking too much to expect you cops to get your story straight? I'm trying to help make an encyclopedia here, and you are putting obstacles in the path. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now we can deal with both of them together. I'm waiting for Eustress to comment. This has come up a few times otherwise, so we will probably need some sort of attempt at a general discussion. If not, I can try nominating that one for deletion and see what happens.... We need to decide 3 parameters: first, what is the level of notability required to justify this second, how many works are needed to make it worthwhile, and third and most troublesome, how complete they need to be. It's been argued for creative writers that these should include every book review and newspaper column the person has written--which for some people will be in the thousands.

It might include every speech, every interview--as is the standard of scholarly bibliiography My view is that such is not appropriate for for a general encyclopedia like this. My own standard for academics is every book, and the 5 most important articles. I don;'t know what people will think in general. I know some science people have objected to any attempt at complete lists, and the humanities, at anything less. My feel with respect to the social sciences is that an additional article is usually undue emphasis, as is a complete list of works. But I could argue in the opposite direction just as well. DGG (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eustress, who is a Yeoman Editor with more than 9,000 edits, has told me: Wikipedia articles should consist mainly of prose, while short embedded lists are appropriate (see WP:EMBED). For long lists, a stand-alone list is not only preferred but necessary per Good article criteria 3b. The Works section (in the main article) highlights some of his works while providing a link to the extemporaneous list, and the section says he is "The author, coauthor or editor of 23 scholarly books and over 100 articles and book chapters...." Articles and lists are treated differently on Wikipedia (WP:FA vs. WP:FL). Mervyn Emrys (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do it by comparing edits. If we did, then since I have about 54,000 according to WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, I would be about 6 times as likely to be correct than he. Now, this is of course a weird way of looking at it; there are a few I think wrong whenever we disagree ranking "higher" than me, and many much better than I am ranking "lower". Nor can one just quote general guidelines, for it all depends on the interpretation. A Wp article should consist mainly of prose, yes that much is generally accepted. Beyond that, opinions vary. The GA rules are neither policy nor guideline. It's a WikiProject, accepted in general by the community. There is no rule against nominating a GA for deletion or merging, and it has happened. Different working groups have the own ideas: most people who work on academics remove all but the top articles from a list, and put them nowhere--except for the truly famous. We have many such projects going their own ways, and sometimes they conflict. The problem here is consistency. I go by the basic rule, that we are a general encyclopedia. Whether we should try to be a general bibliography as well is an interesting question. I do not rule out the possibility. GS does pretty well, but we could probably do better. DGG (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't really care who has more edits. I just want to know how to do it so I don't get into an argument with somebody. In this case, you both insist you are correct, and I am left with no real guidance at all. I thought they should be in the article. That is where I put them originally. Then somebody else told me they should be separate. So what happens now? If I put them in the article, you may be happy but I catch hell from somebody else. If I make them separate, somebody else is happy, but you give me a hard time. Do you suppose the two of you could discuss this and reach an agreement so I'm not caught in the middle? That's all I ask. The current situation seems untenable, and I just want to get some editing done without people hassling me all the time about what I do. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that it's unfortunate and unfair to you that you are in the middle, and I shall continue this elsewhere as there are several general issues involved, both involving bibliographic lists, and involving the use of the FA criteria. There are quite a number of different of ways to do this, and I do not want to focus unduly on this individual articles Norman Wengert and Howard Adelman. While I'm looking at them, though, I may do some touch-ups. (And whether the bibliography is separate or in the article, it should be divided at least between books, and articles.) But I want to mention first two things. WP:EMBED does not say that long lists should go in separate articles, and offers no guidance at all on that point; nor does WP:LIST, though that is the place for the justification of there being Bibliography lists at all. Second, the FA guidelines,\ do not say that a full bibliography must be included. DGG (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on uCoz DRV?[edit]

What's your take on the DRV? To me it seems like its clear that WP:N isn't the issue, yet people continue to endorse with the same reason. I'm starting to get rather concerned that this could have the effect of setting a precedent invalidating these guidelines/policies as well as have an effect towards invalidating the AfD/DRV process. Is it the norm now for editors to now ignore these things? (Wikipedia sure has changed a lot since I was previously active in years past...) Tothwolf (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Wp there are no precedents, and guidelines inherently have exceptions. This ought to permit needed flexibility, but what it actually permits randomness, bias, and special interests in decision making. My first sentence could be rewritten more cynically as: At Wp, there are no precedents if one does not want to use them, and all guidelines have exceptions if one does want to use them. For the not totally obvious decisions, I think AfD gets it wrong at least 20% of the time. For those that come to Deletion Review, the percentage is higher, probably just a little less than 50%. The ket factor is not the strength of the article, but the strength of the support and the opposition. I do not mean my view is always right, but the same numbers will hold no matter what general view one takes. DGG (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen far too much biased stuff lately. I think the thing bothering me the most about this particular article is that it most likely never should have gone to AfD in the first place. The other thing I'm concerned about is that it isn't the only article out of the dozens I saw go though AfD as part of this particular batch of "house cleaning" that can be properly sourced. While some of them might indeed be outright junk, some are extremely easy to source and contained information that people might find useful. At least it should be easier to turn this into a much better article now that more reliable sources are coming to light.
I'm still trying to catch up on what all has happened on Wikipedia in the last 2-3 years and I really can't say I really like the new attitudes I'm seeing. What happened to the old Wikipedia that was fun, where you could easily find a dozen people all working together to build a group of articles? I just don't see this happening anymore. Now it seems like a large number of people are focused only on article retention or deletion; "keep it all" vs "get rid of all the junk (and its junk if I say its junk)" and its having the effect of harming Wikipedia.
This [6] in particular really bothers me. It actually shows how an article that was important and useful to someone went through AfD with basically no informed discussion. (MogileFS AfD) The WP:RS issue could be dealt with easily (and I have the background to do it) but then someone would just claim WP:N. I know this is a symptom of a much much larger issue and I just wish I knew how to fix it.
--Tothwolf (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of deletion tag[edit]

First, there is a democratic process when contesting a deletion. Users are generally not authorized to remove deletion tags; rather users are encouraged to discuss. As for Norton LiveUpdate, the information present cites 4 sources. All of them primary and directly affiliated with Symantec. The article combined is barley a paragraph and can be inserted as a footnote as needed. Or not mentioned at all. TechOutsider (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsdier[reply]

There are two circumstances where one does not remove deletion tags: if the article is under discussion at AfD, or if it is a speedy tag and one is the author of the article. Neither applies here: This was a proposed deletion. Anyone, even the author in fact, can contest a Proposed deletion by removing a tag. People are advised to either improve the article or explain why the tag is not valid. I explained that there was a possibility with a merge , and , if so, then the merge is, according to WP:Deletion Policy, preferred to deletion--Deletion is the Last resort. You seem to agree, though the way we would do it is probably not as a footnote. You were not wrong to tag the article, but neither was I to untag it. The way to get a consensus discussion is to take it to AfD. Ihave no idea what will be the decision there: probably to merge, or at least make a redirect, rather than delete outright, but Afd is unpredictable. DGG (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: fictional places[edit]

I don't really want to do a merge. I don't think that these places really stand enough merit to have mention of them on their own. Really I was trying to give the user an option that wouldn't piss him off. I didn't realize that he was a sockpuppet or I wouldn't have bothered. Matt (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a merge doesn't give them mention of their own --it just puts some information about them into the other article. I agree that they are ridiculous for separate articles. DGG (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question on how to deal with editors who flagrantly disregard guidelines[edit]

Hi DGG. Could you tell me your views of how to deal with a situation like the one I described here on Uncle G's talk page? Thanks, Bongo matic 16:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much of the GNG myself. I do not consider that anything with 2 of what count here as RSs is necessarily notable, nor the other way around. to be notable one needs to accomplish something notable. But the consensus on the standing of a NYT obit to prove notability is clear, and those who try to delete against consensus will not succeed, & if they do it enough times they will be noticed. There's no need to deal with them personally about it. Neither you nor I are appointed as final judges. DGG (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Let the results speak for themselves. Bongo matic 05:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedying dogs[edit]

Hey DGG,

If I may, if dogs are allowed on Recent Deaths, surely they can be speedied. Otherwise, it would be representation without taxation. :) Love, your friend Y. -- Y not? 03:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose it if you like. It has failed the last 5 or 10 times ,but who knows what will happen around hear. You might want to read the previous discussion on pets at the CSD talk atchives first. ,If we're going to discussing t, we would do better to have our talk at the right place & get some attention.DGG (talk) 04:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no, this was just in jest. No intention of proposing anything. -- Y not? 17:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to order takeaways online[edit]

Hi I realise that a G11 is not totally correct but I was wondering if it was worth invoking WP:IAR and speedily deleting it per your prod rationale? --DFS454 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like to speedy via IAR unless the article is harmful in some way G10 and G3 do not cover, which almost never happens. Getting rid of an article which is totally wrong for WP in 5 days is sufficiently fast. DGG (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV[edit]

I have opened a DRV on the wrangler categories, on which you opined. Occuli (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the rescue?[edit]

("Opined", hmm.) Having torpedoed John McBride (photographer), nasty mean evil deletionist that I am, I now feel inclined to save it. However, the crumbs of reliably sourced notabilitude are few. I wonder what you might opine. -- Hoary (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That his works are in one major collection is halfway to notability. If another one can be found , it would meet the requirements of creative professionals and nothing more need be shown. Hoary, this place is full of actual nasty mean deletionists. You don't really qualify. DGG (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't? {sniff} I must try harder. -- Hoary (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have truly formidable competition over there. What you would need to compete at the highest levels there is a degree of suspicion and self-righteousness that few people can attain. DGG (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you really don't know what you can achieve until you try. Bongo matic 07:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at that very AfD I've now even been accused of having perpetrated acts of niceness. At this rate, somebody's going to accuse me of having a civil tongue. Still, I can hardly wait till my "nice" creation of Anne Wilkes Tucker is hit with an AfD. (Make my day, mwa ha ha.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tempt me... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly deranged[edit]

This would be an excellent case to take to Arbcom. The basic principle is whether ordinary users should have to suffer clearly deranged or unhinged cranks and lunatics when they are trying to do a job of cleaning up the encyclopedia. - Who shall do the paperwork? Shall I? Peter Damian (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the posting yours' was immediately in response to seemed innocuous enough. My answer to your question is that whatever we suffer, we must not call them so. DGG (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norman H. Anderson[edit]

I was about to delete this page and its talk page as a G7, then I saw you had left a note on the talk page saying he's important, and there was also a single minor contribution from another author (saying that he's an Emeritus professor). He's requesting db-G7, and my guess is that's the right call in general, but would you like me to hold off on this one? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. The next step is Afd. DGG (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm headed to bed, I'll AfD it if it hasn't been AfD'd already in the morning. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (British Army officer)[edit]

Hi, in your vote in this AfD you implied that your 'keep' was condition on Ms Pilgrim having won the highest award in her service. As it's been established that the award is not the highest in her service (see: [7], you may wish to revisit your vote. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. DGG (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Jamaican, British Jamaicans[edit]

I noticed that you placed under construction tags on these articles. First, I was eyeballing these wo PROD's as I was uncomfortable with everything being deleted from the article a month before the PROD's, then the PROD rationale being the articles were empty. Anyway, do you intend to work on these? or is this a group that is taking on responsibility? I ask as I have found a TON of good references and don't want to loose cannon this if there will be a concentrated effort.

Thanks.

Vulture19 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not intend to work on this topic myself. But I saw that other people wanted to, so I placed the tag to facilitate it for them. Please go right ahead--I suggest that actually published sources will be better than blogs. DGG (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries with sources. Just where to start is the hard part.... Vulture19 (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start at the top, because that's all some people look at. :) DGG (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citibank Philippines[edit]

Hi,

I noticed your deletion of Citibank Philippines in my watch log and was somewhat confused by the comment. "major company. Inadequate deletion reason." sounds more like a reason to keep a page than to delete it, an action which would go in line with User:Ihcoycs closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citibank Philippines. If this was a prod, can you share the given motivation? I'm not questioning the deletion yet as I havn't given it that thought - I just wanted to check that this wasn't a mistake. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 17:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quite right. I hit the wrong key., I meant to keep it, and now have restored the article. Thanks for letting me know. DGG (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salt lake eagle gate apartments AfD[edit]

You declined the speedy tag on Salt lake eagle gate apartments (fine, it doesn't technically apply to the notability speedy), so I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salt lake eagle gate apartments. KuroiShiroi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

revert on Norman H. Anderson[edit]

Hi DGG, I reverted your edit to this article, because I had already added those citation counts (in the list) with reference to WoS. In addition, the counts I got from WoS are much higher than yours (did you use GScholar, perhaps?) Hope you agree with this. --Crusio (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your counts are correct--Scopus was more incomplete than I thought, & in checking I was using a WoS limit that did not apply. I can't do it now, but someone should speedy close that AfD. DGG (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SD[edit]

Do you think there is another tag, besides promotional, that would qualify to speedy delete North American Music Camps? CTJF83Talk 06:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the best choice would be to expand the content beyond a selected list. By our usual practice, most of the individual camps will not be considered notaable, but a combination article about them in general might be a good idea. If you think hat's impossible, try AfD. DGG (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can leave it for now. Can you look at a few other pages I tagged: Laert Dhrami, Longhorn singers, and Sonnyeo htay. Thank you, CTJF83Talk 06:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dhrami is obviously not yet notable, though it is helpful in cases like this to leave a friendly message. htay also has no indication of notability. Longhorn singers is a straight copyvio of their web page, but check the syntax--you need to include the url in the db tag. I deleted all 3. Keep up the good work. 07:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. The backlog was ridiculous on all 3, and I was tired of waiting to see if they'd get deleted or not. CTJF83Talk 07:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...It appears as if Laert Dhrami wasn't actually deleted. CTJF83Talk 07:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The creator put a {{hangon}} tag (but didn't put the reasoning on the talk page). Bongo matic 07:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ABRAMS page[edit]

Hi,

Just finished making edits to the ABRAMS Books page, hopefully solved the citation issue you had flagged, but this is my first edit, so I'm not totally sure. I was hoping you could review the revised page and remove the flag if you see fit.

Thanks! Aiahrachel (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)aiahrachel[reply]

commented there with a suggestion. DGG (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring articles during deletion review[edit]

I don't understand the rationale here. I see you've done this as have article creators [8], and this has happened in at least one case where the closing Admin wasn't even consulted about the DRV (told, but no discussion). Doesn't restoring a blanked version with history allow editors to see earlier versions in any case? I was particularly concerned about Human Achievement Hour where the opponents of the AfD are eager to have it visible today. For some reason I wasn't watching the article and when I saw it last night thought it had been proponents who had completely restored it, and I put it back in its earlier state without realising you had done it. No intention to edit war. I left it there with a comment at DRV. It's been restored and then removed again, but I feel pretty strongly that it shouldn't be visible until a DRV decision was made, otherwise DRV becomes almost just a 2nd AfD with the decision automatically overturned at the beginning of the DRV. Maybe this should go to AN, I thought about that (and I should be asleep), but I respect you and didn't want to start there. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular objection to doing it in the history either. I think in general it makes very little difference. Now, for this particular article, I seem to have totally overlooked the timeliness of the material. This is a case where it would have made a difference and I was careless. What I've just done, is semi-protected it in the correct hidden position. DGG (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I do think that if an article is restored as history only, it should be protected to avoid any problems. Thanks for doing this. Dougweller (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys this is seriously ridiculous. The original article was deleted because of notoriety. That's fine. I get that, it didn't meet N at the time. It was put back up today based on the fact that it has appeared in a story in the USA Today on Fri. 27th, and appeared in two other national news papers, the Charleston Daily and Duluth Tribune the day before. The other sources were balked at for being blogs, or op-eds. The article meets N standards at this point. You've got guys who have obvious bias in the DRV who are editors coming off Earth Hour attempting to have it shut down, and then coming into Human Achievement Hour and editing it maliciously or trying to delete it. Why? Because Human Achievement Hour and Earth Hour are tomorrow. There is no reason for this article not to be up. I doubt you guys have any dogs in this fight, which is fine, I don't suspect ill will from either one of you. But biased editor's and some admins are being allowed to abused WP policy so that they get this article down tomorrow, and the actions that are being taken are essentially letting them win this fight. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a spin zone. Both sides, both events, should be presented. The article in its present state meets WP criteria, it should be posted for the 28th, and possibly even locked and protected. thehondaboy (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the place to get consensus for this is at Deletion Review,not here. I personally have no particular view on this article, and have !voted neither at the afd or the review. If the consensus at the DR is to restore, it will be restored, and, if necessary, protected in that state. If not, it will stay deleted. If you think you can quickly get consensus to restore, try to find it there. DGG (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? This is political now. It's done unless a top level admin steps up to the plate. There is nothing in HAH that does not meet WP guidelines to necessitate an article. N clearly states that popularity does not determine notoriety which is blatantly being ignored by editors and admins alike. thehondaboy (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, this is an encyclopedia, not a political web site, The more you say this way the more you convince me the article might really be unsuitable.DGG (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very clearly what I mean by political is the fact that editor's of the Earth Hour page have been rallied to endorse deletion on our page whether it has merit or not. It's obvious that no one actually cares about merit or WP rules. There is no way after this I could ever trust anything on WP ever again. There are climate articles built on blog citations. But Human Achievement Hour is mentioned in 3 national papers including the USA Today. And there is a story citing it in TIME MAGAZINE today. But these aren't good enough for noteriety. Why? Because individuals personal bias is deciding when these will be good sources or not. This whole project is a sham. thehondaboy (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy (Author) to stay in Wikipedia[edit]

I respectfully request you reconsider your decision for "endorsing deletion". I believe there have been many productive responses to concerns on the deletion review page as well as additional references and notability entries (#1/#2) added to the article. Thank you very much for your time. CelticWonder (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I commented again there. It's a borderline matter. I hope people don;t take my own opinion too seriously--it's just my own. Your opinion is just as good. Have you asked Orange Mike to take a look?--he understands this subject well. DGG (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I disagree with your "borderline" verdict, I appreciate your input regardless. And thank you for your suggestion, I'll ask him. CelticWonder (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Meridian merge[edit]

Hello, there is a proposal to merge an article you recently discussed here. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

commented: said both yes and no. yes if the content is merged, no if its suppressed in a pseudo-merge. The discussion there shows that the second is more likely--as is often the case. DGG (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your comment DGG and I understand you're concerns about large parts of information simply being discarded. With my current proposal I was trying to imitate the other entries on the Love Interest article, but I am of course open to suggestions for expanding it. I was trying to not just recount plot details (at length) already explained in the Batman Forever article and have more stuff about the actual character. Despite being a "deletionist" lol I even added a nice little un-used quote I found in an old interview that you might like. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my really fundamental position is that it should be possible to reach a compromise on all of these content questions. More than should, there must be, for how else are we to proceed? DGG (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise is good, I'd like that. I don't really wanna create a "Batman love interest" article, not on principle, but just because I don't really have the time, is that something you are considering creating though? Ryan4314 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy enough to split out the section but a longer general discussion should be written also. that part I'm not up to. DGG (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sounds fair enough. For the short-term, what improvements do you think I could make to my merge proposal? Ryan4314 (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of residential colleges[edit]

You previously commented at WikiProject Colleges & Universities about the notability of college/university residences and other campus buildings. A RFC has been submitted on the best way to deal with the existence of many Wikipedia articles on residence halls and dormitories at colleges and universities that may not be notable. Your input and feedback would be appreciated at the RFC. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American International Underwriters[edit]

I do not want to merge the articles, I was simply saying that any information about this group should instead be included in the AIG article. This article needs to be deleted because it makes no sense whatsoever. Did you actually even bother reading the article before removing the speedy deletion template? I'm guessing not, because, if you had, you would have realized why it needed to be deleted. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wanting to include the content in another article is a merge. I do not see that it is obvious nonsense, in any case, so it does not fulfil any of the requirements at WP:CSD. If it is wrong or unclear, fix it. A nd do not replace a speedy tag once anybody other than the author removes it. DGG (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion[edit]

This is your field. Are this and this enough for Cephalonian method to stand? Or is there a wider topic that this can be refactored/merged into here? Uncle G (talk) 10:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this method consists of giving the students prepared questions on card at the start of a session. At various times they are asked to read one aloud and ask the question on it, This gives them the illusion of controlling the session. Library instruction sessions are so dull, that even this works in keeping the students awake. It's the equivalent of having a stooge in the audience set to ask questions to keep things going. If I can find further refs. I will rewrite the article. DGG (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rewritten, and I see no reason for it to stand. The few publications are in very minor places. DGG (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lockwood redirect[edit]

Hey, I thought I was the deletionist and you were the inclusionist? I'd rather concentrate on cleaning up, or deleting, the underlying article, which reeks of the corporate resume/promotional brochure. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all I did was remove the redirect, not the main article, which does need to be drastically fixed. Inclusionist or not, we cant do a link from every profession he's in. I am not absolutely certain historian is the best, but its better than business consultant. DGG (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help on redirecting[edit]

Hi David. I have actually also exchanged messages with Mike regarding the deletion of this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lockwood_(corporate_strategist)). Redirecting the article was actually what I had difficulty with shaping up, as it wouldn't post unless it's renamed (as I was also advised)since there were two articles of the same title. For this reason, I tried to post a message on Requests for Feedback page and an "asking for help" message on my talk page. The redirecting process had been completely executed by one or a couple of helpful wiki editors. Since it's been removed, how do I fix it to restore my article? I need your help please. Thank you very much. Jxc5 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is there, as Charles Lockwood (historian). He's clearly notable, but it is much easier to show notability as an architectural historian than as a consultant, because there are publications. We normally list all the books, and only the most important articles, and link to book reviews, but to not give long quotes from them. . DGG (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)[edit]

Not too long ago you participated in a deletion review for the article Sheree Silver. I tried to improve the article with the sources I mentioned in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14, but I've currently put the article in RfC because of a disagreement over including these sources. Meanwhile, the article is going another AFD. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate your thoughts on: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination), thank you for your time! Spring12 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Health[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wiki, so hopefully you'll forgive me for my ignorance. Recently I tried to start an article on Project HEALTH. I read that you're not supposed to write an article on an organization you are a part of, and I wanted to clarify what this meant. I'm a student volunteer at one of PH's sites, but not a hired employee or a member of the national staff. Would I still be able to write an article? I'm confused because I can't imagine anyone writing a very long article about a subject they have absolutely no interest in. I also wanted to ask about what the idea of "importance and significance" is, and if I just failed to write enough/explain why it was significant, or if it was just viewed prima facie as an unimportant topic. Basically, will features in the NYTimes and Baltimore Sun, ABC News, and some online medical journals satisfy the important criteria? Lastly, do you know where I can recover the code that I had already written. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpy2101 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, last thing. PH is basically a nonprofit that has sites in several major universities (I'd say it's comparable to something like Let's Get Ready (education)). Can you e-mail me instead of talking on this page; it's more convenient for me: dpy2101(at)columbia(dot)edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpy2101 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wranglers" - A BBC Soap Opera[edit]

Hi, David. I was just wondering if you could comment again in this interminable drama, or explain your ideas to me. First, about your point "for a category, there is no other method of review of seeing whether consensus has changed." Having ignored CfD debates up to now, I am less confident than usual about what I say about technicalities. (I guess it is because they could be G4 speedy deleted if recreated, so there could never be an occasion for a second CfD to see if consensus changes?) It might be good for this to be in policy; I haven't noticed where this is spelled out.

A comment might cut the Gordian Knot of the "new information"/deletion review debate, which should be irrelevant for cats, but not articles. For jc37 (and a bit less, Good Ol'factory) understand "new information" in deletion review in a way which amazes several of us down there. Together with the "consistency" close of the second wrangler debate it amounts to a "bait and switch" (see Dominus' clear summary) , and as I see it, something so Kafkaesque it is actually in Kafka (the part about the door meant for Joseph K, and probably elsewhere). This interpretation could make deletion review very easy to subvert and prior decisions irreversible. My highest regards,John Z (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

using analogies from legal stuff, a decision made in disregard of the underlying facts is a procedural error, because it is procedure to make rational decisions. Jury decisions "that no rational jury could make" are generally overturned. How much discretion there is in doing so is always a matter of interpretation. In practice, the argument that one shouldn't overturn a reasonable decision is always argued if what one wishes to do is support the underlying decision, and that the decision isn't reasonable is always made when one does want to overturn it. One picks the desired result, and finds a rule to fit the case. The rulebook here has enough self-contradictions to make this rather easy.

As a shortcut, we have a fundamental principle here which will trump any procedural objection whatsoever: WP:IAR. "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it, " and the corollary, NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was interested if my interpretation of the specific technical reason why you said that about categories in particular is correct. The logic in this debate seems stranger to me than most I've seen here, and I've been here a while. Thanks,John Z (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the manner of re-creation. It's not like an article, where one could always write a better article that at least partially meets the objects and put it in mainspace, or at worst put it in userspace and ask for a review. Even when an article title has been salted, putting a proposed article in userspace is acceptable. But one cannot do that with a category. One could of course redefine a category, but that will not always be possible. So I can't figure out a good procedure. When something might need to be done for which there is no procedure, that's the classic case where IAR is warranted. I recall that during the early era of desegregation in the 50s, some southern state thought it had found a clever way to prevent action by making the decisions in the magistrate's courts non-appealable. The Supreme Court said that in that case the highest state court was the magistrate's court, and it would hear appeals directly. In English history, the role of the Court of Chancery was at first to impose equity in the nontechnical sense by forcing fair dealing with good faith. We've kept the concept of good faith at Wikipedia -- an obvious bad faith action will be reverted without worrying much about what forum to do it in. I invite comment from anyone who can can correct me, or find a way.DGG (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere thanks for the enlightening comment and replies.John Z (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character DYK, Good, and Featured drive suggestion[edit]

Hello! Please see User_talk:Pixelface#Something_different_to_work_on as I believe you can perhaps be helpful in these efforts! Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages for deletion[edit]

I have nominated a lot of academics pages for deletion. You have used the word emminent - I believe quite rightly that they are not. Wikipedia is not a place for bios - from any profession - and for an academic to be noted in wikipedia they must have significant importance. Please note that I will be forwarding said academics pages for deletion via the discussion route as you have removed the tags. Kunchan (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the below are the criteria for notability of an academic - the candidates I suggested for deletion do NOT meet this (take for example the minor academic Chris Knight, that I had for deletion - he does NOT met any of the below criteria). Please do not put notices on my page telling me to desist when I have every right to put these up according to Wikipedia's own criteria. I will be putting these forward for discussion -

The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE) The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunchan (talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BEFORE. If you fail to even check for their publications and reviews of them, you are not being careful enough, for that is how we measure "significant impact". Having helped develop the standard over a two year period, I think I understand it fairly well, but if you nominate them for AfD, the community will decide. I am fairly sure of how they will decide for the like of Kelvin Davies, who very clearly meets the named chair criterion. For some others, it may not be quite so clear-cut. I'll just mention that for some of these article, it is other editors also who have been removing the tags. What you may not do, however, is replace a prod tag once anyone has removed it. Prod is only effective if you think nobody will disagree. Sometimes,I remove a prod tag even if I think it borderline, and might even personally say to delete, as the community is better fit for making decisions in such cases than just you or me. DGG (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Parliament for Safety and Peace[edit]

Hello DGG. Thank you for your comments at Talk:International Parliament for Safety and Peace and your improvements to the article. They were very helpful. I have changed the article and explained my edits on the talk page. I hope that you find time to contribute to the discussion at the talk page and/or the article itself. Sorry I did respond earlier to your invitation to join the discussion and thanks for the invite! Best regards, gidonb (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks fine; it will stay on my watchlist. DGG (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Regards, gidonb (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

telling authors apart[edit]

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

-- responded there. DGG (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AfD closings[edit]

I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks for letting me know. –Juliancolton | ^Talk

[1] UNESCO warning

[2] Bears' guide to earning degrees by distance learning By Mariah P. Bear Published by Ten Speed Press, 2003 ISBN 1580084311, 9781580084314

[1]

[2]

Intercultural Open University[edit]

Status[edit]

delete article[edit]

Intercultural Open University Article continuing support of deletion[edit]

continuing support of deletion[edit]

Intercultural Open University Article[edit]

Ecopass[edit]

Sorin (Dark Planet)[edit]

Intercultural Open University Article[edit]

Removed your PROD of Vormsi enn[edit]

Personal attacks?[edit]

Journalists killed[edit]

Eleazar (painter)[edit]

Disturbing edits from Canadian IP[edit]

Threshold knowledge[edit]

Final warning response!![edit]

Notablility (populated places)[edit]

Threshold knowledge[edit]

Talkback[edit]

February 2009[edit]

Appreciation[edit]

Michael Tobias[edit]

Tarysky[edit]

More questions[edit]

Mostafa Mahmoud[edit]

University of California, Los Angeles[edit]

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross[edit]

Thanks[edit]

User:J G Howes[edit]

Facebook[edit]

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - March 2009[edit]

Air France Robbery (1967) article[edit]

Help?[edit]

Re: Comments on Others[edit]

some comments of yours[edit]

Speedy Deletion of authors[edit]

Primary sources[edit]

Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith in Place[edit]

Someone else sort of signing as you?[edit]

Talk:Comparison_of_wiki_farms[edit]

response[edit]

new p.[edit]

ALERT!![edit]

The Magician's Apprentice[edit]

Eleazar[edit]

On William Timmons[edit]

A favor?[edit]

Talkback[edit]

AfD nomination of List of neopets species[edit]

Q about PROD contest on Line 3, Guangzhou Metro[edit]

Pakistani article[edit]

Twofer[edit]

Virginia county/city NRHP lists[edit]

Adding a new category for SURVIVORS of the Holocaust[edit]

Carmen L. Robinson[edit]

RFA[edit]

Curiosity question[edit]

Comments on proposal[edit]

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day![edit]

Obama[edit]

Attacks against the Messiah at the Gates of Rome[edit]

Islam and civil rights[edit]

Lincoln High School (West Virginia) Prod[edit]

Re: Criticism of Barack Obama[edit]

Good question....[edit]

Talkback[edit]

Lidia Rudnicka[edit]

DRV[edit]

glad to hear that...[edit]

Rousso[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florentina Mosora[edit]

NYC[edit]

Another Look[edit]

Weak and regular[edit]

Re: Hypercubist[edit]

You're invited![edit]

You are giving me conflicting information[edit]

Comments on uCoz DRV?[edit]

Removal of deletion tag[edit]

Re: fictional places[edit]