User talk:DGG/Archive 27 Apr. 2009

Oh and thanks

Oh, and thanks for the comment on my talk, it's nice to have some appreciation shown. It's a little too far between the "thank yous" and "good jobs" on wikipedia sometimes, especially, it seems, in the WP namespace. :-) Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My contribution to the silliness today

Please see Laurence Madin - who discovered that jellyfish poo is causing global warming.

-) Is he notable? Bearian (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Director of Research at Woods Hole? Yes indeed. DGG (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. LOL. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure

I forgot this other G4 speedy [1] - see also my comments on the recreating editor's talk page. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Doug --are you sure you intended this for me--I cant recall complaining about it? DGG (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I just forgot to mention it when I said I'd only do it without a tag in the case of blatant attack pages, then I realised that I'd done that. I didn't want it to look as though I was hiding that. By the way, your sig was date stamp only. Dougweller (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, when I type 5 ~ instead of 4,that's how it comes out. I've set up a keyboard macro for it but sometimes I forget to use it and just get emphatic. And now I understand the context. Let me quietly admit that I have been known to apply a small amount of IAR grease even in speedy, though I would never advise doing it. And I've even done a few sole afds when I get impatient. DGG (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

JCutter (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure

I forgot this other G4 speedy [2] - see also my comments on the recreating editor's talk page. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Doug --are you sure you intended this for me--I cant recall complaining about it? DGG (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I just forgot to mention it when I said I'd only do it without a tag in the case of blatant attack pages, then I realised that I'd done that. I didn't want it to look as though I was hiding that. By the way, your sig was date stamp only. Dougweller (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, when I type 5 ~ instead of 4,that's how it comes out. I've set up a keyboard macro for it but sometimes I forget to use it and just get emphatic. And now I understand the context. Let me quietly admit that I have been known to apply a small amount of IAR grease even in speedy, though I would never advise doing it. And I've even done a few sole afds when I get impatient. DGG (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

An old acquaintance?

Hi DGG,

I ran into an old acquaintance of yours, Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs), which you had unblocked in January with a stern warning to get his act together (here). Unfortunately, he hasn't (see here). Even more unfortunately, the blocking admin didn't think Malcolm's history warranted more than a 24-hour block.

I was not too happy with that decision and wanted to wait for a second opinion, but the thread on WP:AE was closed rather abruptly. Just thought you might want to give your opinion on this.

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.04.2009 13:06

Curiously, the blocks given out by the arbitrators and at AE are generally much lower than what admins do on their own or at AN/I. I do not know why. I'm npt going to modify something done there unless there's a repeat. DGG (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit protected pages

I wanted to note that I responded to your statement about editing protected pages. I wasn't really sure what you meant. Mostly, I just want to fix problems such as spelling errors and the rest for DYK and TFA. Its kinda annoying having to request others to do it. I don't -need- to do it myself, of course. :) But yeah, people said I didn't have enough reasons to be a sysop so I threw it in there to bulk out what I -could- be doing. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant that you had a tendency to be overly persistent on small issues, and a page is often protected to stop people from doing that. You're probably the best writer here, and you get impatient with the rest of us. In practice, one has to let a certain amount of errors go unfixed. DGG (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Lol. I would not edit those kinds of pages, but I understand now. I mostly meant that when people point out a problem with DYK (spelling errors or the rest) that are annoying and embarrassing. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of iScribble

The iScribble page was deleted today for reasons G11: Blatant advertising and A7: No notability. I was unaware of any advertising quality the page had and I'm unsure of how to add a significant notability. I did however, question the necessity of secondary sources on the article, but didn't think it would lead to speedy deletion.

If you would be so kind as to inform me on how to rectify the page, I'd be very grateful. Protocol: Noir (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not the first admin to have deleted it. Both reasons apply. It's about a non-notable website, with so many details about the operation of the site as to be appropriate for promotion or instruction, not for encyclopedic information. It contains a section for how to make donations, a reliable indication of a promotional article. it contains a section on how to make user profiles. It contains a section saying what colors are permitted. It contains a description of each editing tool. Worst of all, it contains a section listing the current top members of the site. All references were from the site itself, so there is no evidence at all that anyone has ever written about it. If you can find 3rd party references to it, try again. And include only encyclopedic information, leaving the user instruction where it belongs. See WP:WEB, and read our guide to writing Wikipedia articles . DGG (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Saint Gregory

I've provided suitable references for Brotherhood of Saint Gregory to establish notability; but User:Ad.minster seems intent on reverting anyone who removes the tags he added. Tb (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proceed, and I fear I have inadvertently violated WP:3RR on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory. User:Ad.minster requseted references, and then proceeded to delete them saying two were "home made" websites--official organizations of the Episcopal Church. He also blanked a page of my own notes User:Tb/Foo six times. I'm frustrated. I'd be happy to provide whatever references would help to establish notability, and if User:Ad.minster wants a VFD, I would be happy to provide references there too, but he seems to want something else. Tb (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what Bushnell is saying is that he just reverted YOUR edits.

He does not want ANY tags in this article, which he wrote about himself.

Further, he is has been WP:Hounding me all over Wikipedia the last several months, reverting evrything I write, including my own User pages.

He frequently loses Notice Board Incidents, but he ignores them and continues on as if nothing happened. Ad.minster (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Brotherhood of Saint Gregory, except that the edit log clearly shows the article was created by User:The Wednesday Island, not by me, and that I have had only a minimal role in editing it. Wikipedia has tags to request work to be done on articles, and making spurious an incorrect claims (saying that, for example, Province II of the Episcopal Church is a "home made" website, or that NAECC is "home made", and the like). I'm happy to fetch references to substantiate claims made; I'm happy to fetch references to substantiate notability. I would like it if DGG could decide what tags are appropriate for the article, and see if he thinks perhaps the version from July 31, 2008, is not suitable. I'm happy to discuss the article in a VFD, but none has been opened, and I'm happy to provide references if they are requested, but I'm somewhat stuck about the proper procedure, and I would appreciate DGG's advice. Tb (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot edit article that is about you and an organization of roommates that includes you. It's called a conflict of interest.

Furthermore, you are not to use your multiple WP:Sockpuppets in a dispute which you have created.

Then, do not forget that you have deleted my USER pages several dozen times, although you were not named in them.

Last, YOU reverted DGG's edits and tags, so why are you raising hell here?

Move on, (redacted by DG) Ad.minster (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1) My edits were confined to general style changes across the encyclopedia, as I clearly indicated in the talk page. I would like to add references only because they were specifically requested. 2) Accusations of sock-puppetry are a serious matter. I request that you retract it or substantiate it. 3) I have not deleted any pages (nor could I, I'm not an admin), but I did remove mentions of me, and links to old versions that mentioned me, as personal attacks. Finally, the material itself was removed by User:Xeno. 4) As I described in the edit log, the only revert I made of DGG's edit was a mistake due to insufficient attention on my part after an edit conflict. I then repeated his change myself, and you reverted that back to your list of tags. 5) Regardless, I'm happy to defer to DGG. He suggests adding references, worries that more may be needed if a VFD comes up, but you have been deleting the references and otherwise mangling the text of the article. I would like that to please stop.

Tb (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded at the AfD. Tb, please add the additional references right now. ad.minister, do not remove content. And never mention the actual name of a party who uses a pseudonym. If you do that again, you will be blocked immediately--it is one of our basic rules. I see you have just been given a block for violation of 3RR from another admin, but this should not affect the RfA as you have said there as much as can usefully be said. As for my view of whether the article is notable, I shall review it tomorrow. DGG (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RFC JZG 3

Hi DGG

You created a comment section but then didn't make a comment [3]. Was this a mistake or have I simply missed some profound irony? Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it now. (I was interrupted while writing.) However, I was wondering whether anyone would notice. DGG (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

narrow range of topics

DGG,

Thank you so much for your encouragement and respectful mediation. I am brand new to WP--two days. And you're absolutely correct, I came to it through my concerns over the article on Oliver DeMille. So many people have mentioned to me the negative bias over the past couple of years, but I admit I kind of tried to ignore it because I felt somewhere between helpless and disinterested, not understanding how I could make a difference. I don't know what changed, but I finally decided to investigate how to become an editor with WP. I will say, to be clear, that I was not recruited and have not consulted with others regarding what to write, or what they were going to write.

But back to your point of my narrow interest: I cannot begin to tell you how sincerely I hope that it will be short-lived. The DeMille article is so long and tedious that it has not left me time for branching out in the past 48 hours, but I assure you that I am (to my surprise;-D) invested in the WP process, and will now be a great advocate of others becoming involved in the Wikipedia project. What began as an interest in editing a single article has opened my eyes to something I honestly never thought of before.

I'm feeling really empowered and excited since I have caught the greater vision of WP! I have used it often over the past few years, and now I feel like I'm seeing what a great opportunity it can be for students to learn to research and write (as editors, not just consumers). It is a fabulous tool for learning the art of persuasion, negotiation and diplomacy. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but seriously, it feels like an epiphany. I truly had no idea.

So exposing others to the reality of how easy it is to make WP a part of education and making a difference will be my next engaging WP project.

Again, I thank you so much for your patient and supportive attitude. I took a lot of nerve for me to click the "Save Page" button for the first time. I know that will be the first of many. I hope to be an asset to WP.

--Ibinthinkin (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh-oh---I think I did something wrong. Did I post this in the wrong place? If I messed up your page, I promise it was unintentional. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

this is a perfectly good place to say what you came here to say. DGG (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi DGG - we spoke back in September about the George Wythe University-related articles. At the time, these articles went through some significant changes, most notably the Oliver DeMille article, in response to allegations of OR, BLP violations, etc., which you mediated and which I believed were resolved at the time. Not many people since have been interested in editing these articles, except for me. I have striven to maintain a npov (although I admit to being suspicious of GWU). Suddenly in the last week or so, three new users have popped up to edit these articles, charging me with tendentious editing and with using the articles as attack pages. Certainly it's fair to scrutinize my edits. The reason I'm writing here is that I believe two of these editors (Arationalguy and Ibinthinkin‎) may in fact be sockpuppets of User:4by40. I'm not exactly sure how to level the charge formally, but all three appeared near the same time, and have edited virtually nothing but GWU-related articles (in every case pushing for more-positive coverage). All three tend to have the same tone on the talk pages, and all three have made personal attacks against me. Please consider Ibinthinkin's comments in this context. Thanks, --TrustTruth (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:SSP. I do not normally work on these issues. See there for the sort of evidence that will be needed for a formal investigation. In any case, I am not qualified to engage in this sort of investigation that is required. I deal with articles, and will discuss them on the talk pages as appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I created the investigation template. --TrustTruth (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

my narrow range of topics is a lot narrower than TrustTruth gives me credit for. I've had nothing to do with the GWU page, even though TrustTruth himself very good-naturedly pointed me there. I have conceded without shame that I registered as a user because I wanted to help improve the Oliver DeMille article. What this has to do with Arationalguy and 4by40 is not clear to me. Neither has made any edits on the Oliver DeMille page, although 4by40 did comment on a proposal I made. Which proposal, by the way, I would hope that TrustTruth would consider and comment on. The fact of my recent appearance on WP--or any other user's presence--is not damning, as far as I can tell. Analyze my proposed edits for their merit, analyze TrustTruth for his edits' merit. I'm comfortable with that arrangement. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi David

Please can you tell me if I have to upload the page Eleazar (painter) that you modified last month? I await your response. Thanks again.--Eleazar1954 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

additional references are needed, and the 3rd paragraph in "Painting" needs rewriting into clearer English. Every place where you refer to what the paiting are and their intention rquires a reference. DGG (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Conflict of Interest

DGG: I am copying this to your talk page because after I posted it to GoodOlfactory's page, I got paranoid that I needed more eyes to see this. What a horrific week this has been. Please--check this out and let me know if there is anything you can recommend to me...

GO: I appreciate the information regarding autobiographical editing. Your tone was absolutely friendly, supportive and respectful. You may detect in my response a little emotional strain, and I apologize in advance for this. It is not intended as disrespect or frustration toward you personally.

As I have stated repeatedly, I am not Oliver DeMille. It seems to me if Oliver DeMille had an interest in editing his article he would have done so a long time ago. Based on the discussion history, it has been problematic for POV for a very long time, and it has crossed the BLP line on numerous occasions and for an extended period. It's pretty clear that DeMille passes on Wikipedia-- and that's probably lucky, because it's arguable he might have had a case for libel.

I intimated on TrustTruth's talk page that I have had occasion to form a personal opinion of DeMille. As he is a living person who knows a lot of people, it is my understanding that that, in and of itself, should not disqualify me from being an editor. Let it be noted that TrustTruth has some pretty strong opinions of his/her own, which have repeatedly been cited as a problem for this article, which is, for heaven's sake, a biography of a living person and should be held to the very highest standard of regarding negative bias--and on that basis alone, it should be TrustTruth, and not me, who is being called to account here. If an editor is guilty of sensationalizing a BLP toward the positive, that's just crappy editing. If toward the negative, that's potentially libel. Really? I'm the one being discussed here?

And is anyone saying my edits are not neutral? My word, I even put in a link to a totally stinky polemic's site. DGG removed it because it was a blog, which I guess you can't do for a negative source. I'm not experienced enough to have calculated that error to reflect on me; I honestly was trying to represent the whole picture.

But back to the point: I'm not saying that a positive bias is necessary to bring balance here. I'm saying, just because I know something about Oliver DeMille shouldn't take me off the list of potential editors of his article. I think this would not be much of an encyclopedia if that were the benchmark for selection of users.

I have declared affirmatively that I signed up as a user with the original intent of improving the Oliver DeMille article (I have subsequently decided that I really like being a WP editor, so after this hubbub is over, I'm moving on to less controversial encounters with editing!!). What more full disclosure could be owing here? And, agreeing that I am not Oliver DeMille editing his own page without disclosing it, what difference does it make who I am? I am subject to the same standards of quality as any other editor, and am committed to the purpose of this forum, which TrustTruth demonstrably is not. I implore you to review my defense of sockpuppetry allegations [4] for more on this. I don't know what to do.

Other than the concern that I might be Oliver DeMille writing an autobiographical edit without disclosing his identity, is there any concern over the content or POV of my edits? I noted in the talk page several days before I undertook to do it that it was my intention to revise it completely, and supplied for review a sample of the type of revision I intended to make, requesting comment. I received one from 4by40 (which prompted TrustTruth to request an official investigation of sock-puppetry on me).

TrustTruth/TheRealGW (they are the same person--see the link I cited above) did not comment on the substance of the proposal, although he did ask why I felt it was necessary. I supplied previous comments from three different users enumerating the deficits of the article. He did not comment further, although I took my request for comment to his page, where we were interacting, and DGG's page, where we were interacting. I think a review of my interactions with him will show that I am sincere, and his with me, that he has tried on two occasions now to use administrative action to silence me, rather than to undertake to engage the discussion of what neutrality and format might look like in the article on Oliver DeMille.

Upon making my major revision, I immediately asked DGG (the administrator who had been overseeing concerns about the article--forgive me if I misspeak; I am not well-versed in the processes or lingo here) and asked for his review for quality and especially NPOV, specifically citing the concerns TrustTruth had raised over my neutrality--this because TrustTruth had not weighed in himself on the substance of my proposal. Is this not the type of quality control you would want from an editor? Even if I were Oliver DeMille (and again, I am not), what more would you have asked of him? (yeah, a disclosure that it's him--but anything else?)

To sum up: as I am not Oliver DeMille, is there any other concern for the content or quality of my editing? At what point does the review of TrustTruth and his reign of misinformation and intimidation result in action against him? He has repeatedly brought the battle to me, dodged my attempts to reason it out, made accusations about me, and taken administrative action against me. I offered to discuss our differences in private to try to buffer him from administrative scrutiny, as I had detected that his privileges as an editor were under review. He chose not only to do it all in the light of day, but to involve others. Fine. I will defend myself.

Please, GO. I don't know my rights here. What recourse do I have against his attacks? I had previously recommended (in my sock-puppetry defense) that he be retained as an editor with a ban from the articles where his bias has been a long-standing issue. I'm at a place now where I think that there is more than a lack of objectivity at issue. He's downright hostile, manipulative and dishonest. Please help me, if you can. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

After I posted that, I saw this:

Oliver DeMille editing his own article

G.O. - I don't interact with a lot of administrators, but I remember communicating with you in the past. There has been a lot of back and forth between me and some other editors on the George Wythe University and Oliver DeMille articles. It appears one of these editors has a clear conflict of interest. This edit alone [5] appears to be near-conclusive evidence that User:Ibinthinkin is none other than the subject of the article himself, Oliver DeMille. Note the extremely detailed narrative of his high school years, complete with references to obscure newspaper clippings of the time. But the damning evidence comes in footnote 19, where he adds a deep link to a scanned image of his own college transcript, complete with social security number and everything. This transcript is not linked anywhere at the hosted website, and appears to have been added for the sole purpose of being referenced in the Wikipedia article. The site hosting the transcript is owned and run by Oliver DeMille (see http://www.tjedonline.com/about). I really don't know what the next step would be, or how to make a formal accusation. I've already accused Ibinthinkin of being a sockpuppet of User:4by40, but this is something different. Could you point me in the right direction? --TrustTruth (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it help if I approached the editor and said someone has expressed a concern about his edits on this article, and it is suspected that he is editing the article about himself? I could also point him to Wikipedia:Autobiography for his reference. Depending on whether he denies it or acknowledges it, then we can go from there? If you'd like met to do that, let me know and I can do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be awesome. Thanks a lot. (I have already brought this up with him, but we're in a messy back and forth.) --TrustTruth (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

DGG: I'm probably being paranoid, but it looks like I'm being set up for an ambush. I'm not Oliver DeMille, but this sort of collusion, in the wake of the unwarranted sockpuppetry allegations, looks like I'm going to be the target of one action after another, and this from an editor who probably shouldn't be here anyway. What can I do? I'm going to hold up fine in both of these investigations, but I'm sick of this drama and I think it's just plain wrong that a guy that was warned and warned and never banned is now having this kind of power to harass me. Help? What are my options? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

My advice is the same as anyone with some experience here would give you: to concentrate on articles. Avoid commenting on other editors, even if they comment on you. Do not attempt to link on-wiki users with real-world people. And develop some work on other topics. DGG (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

direct me to the right place?

I'm writing a few new articles on favorite books and people that aren't here (nothing controversial, as far as I can tell! deliver me from drama...) and I'm wondering if you can direct me to an article to tell me how to save my betas without putting them in the search engine? I'm obviously not searching for the right thing, because I'm coming up with zilch. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is not any way to do a save in Wikipedia without actually entering the material--which is why you found no instructions on how to do it. There are three approaches to get around this: The very safest is to write them off line first, and not enter the material until it is fairly complete. If it is an article about a book, be sure that it is not entirely devoted to the plot, but talks also about the authorship, publication, reception, and later influence, and that it is supported by references to at least two substantial books reviews in published sources--not blogs or Amazon blurbs. If it is an article about a person, make sure it clearly shows what the person did that makes him or her notable, and that it has at least two references providing substantial coverage of the person from third party independent published reliable sources. The second more complicated way is to do this on a subpage in your user space. Start a page, User:Ibinthinkin/whatevertitleyouwant, and write it there until it is complete. Then move it to the actual title. See WP:MOVE for instructions on that. The third way is to make sure that the initial partial version contains something to show why the subject is notable, and at least one good reference. If you are writing about an author and his books, write the article on the author first, briefly mentioning the books. It is in all cases sensible to make sure you have references before even starting, because without them, the article will sooner or later get deleted. If you should be writing about material of a very specialized interest, try to find at least one reference from well-known mainstream sources. The best one-page introduction to what is needed is our |guide to writing Wikipedia articles. DGG (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I know you're probably REALLY busy, but...

I just made a major revision of the Oliver DeMille page (which I put up for discussion with samples of what I was proposing several days before I began to make the changes), which has been sort of a hotspot of late. Would you please review the new version and let me know if you think it is NPOV? As you may remember, I'm new here, and this is the first time I've edited an article. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, I'd rather work on articles than argue over policy. Much improved, but still an excessively detailed treatment of a minor figure, although Wikipedia has unfortunately never established an enforceable principle that the length of treatment must be proportionate to importance. Some of this can be solved by copyediting for conciseness, and I will make a start. Continue combining references, here and on the article on the college, using the named ref tag. But there is a serious problem: negative bio information may not come from blogs. If the blogs are from respected major authorities in the subject, and are merely published in the form of blogs, their authority must be absolutely clear. Otherwise, if there is no better source for the criticism it must be removed. DGG (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

St. Andrew's School (Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire)

You marked this as not AfD. And found "within 15 seconds" by googling a school in Bedfordshire. Which is not in Huntingdonshire. So I undid the change. I stated quite clearly which sources I had checked; I did not explicitly include Google but I am sure you would realise that was implied. If you can find any information on it, add it, otherwise, let it be deleted.

It's only a one-line stub. I have been through, in the last couple of days, every school listed in Cambridgeshire with coordinates missing (and many other locations too) and added them; often added a bit more info too, and created new articles and stubs. This school is simply, quite literally, off the map.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

oops. This sort of thing does happen. I'm grateful you caught it. My apologies. DGG (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I am not sure if I am strictly allowed to do that (revert a non-delete), but saw no harm in it. I see rules as guidelines not as things to be obeyed when common sense says something else. Ave. SimonTrew (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You did absolutely right to reverse my error. The relevant policy is WP:IAR, otherwise known as common sense. DGG (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

Hi, I just saw the DRV on one of the AFDs you closed and wanted to give you my support. I'm really starting to respect you mate, I'd still say I'm a deletionist and your an inclusionist blah blah blah, but I was really impressed by your civility and willingness to compromise in a discussion we had here and by a review comment you made here. Your arguments are always founded in policy, I hope we can collaborate more in the future. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The best road to co-operation --not just between you and me but more generally-- is a decreased emphasis on the concepts of inclusionism/exclusionism of articles, and concentration instead upon the questions of what content there should be, and how it is to be arranged. There are many ways to organize a good encyclopedia. To pick an area, the questions should not be whether we are to have articles on minor league baseball players, but rather how much information we should have, and whether it is to be in separate articles. These are not yes/no questions, but degrees. And they are to be decided not by abstract rules of "notability" into which decisions must fit, but by deciding what we want to do, accommodating both the interests of those concerned in the specific topic, and the general community sense of appropriateness and coherence--which can then be summarized as guidelines. The more we work on whether articles are to be divided, the less we can work on developing content and sourcing articles. But many people find it easier to argue than to do research and writing. DGG (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, there seems to be more focus on whether content has it's own article than the actual content itself. Namespace has become the battleground for the ideals of Inclusionism & Deletionism to battle, all the while the actual content is ignored/suffers. I am now becoming a fan of merging & redirecting a) to save relevant/sourced content b) as a compromise. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am open-minded to merging and redirecting as a compromise as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy categories

If I could direct your attention to WP:PHILO. Please note the navigation bar organizes the task forces such that we could reasonably expect that every "philosophy" article in WP would be covered by at least one task force. Ideally, each article should be within at least one task force for subject area, one for major tradition, one for period. This set up had been discussed at WT:PHIL a long time ago. Since it was set up, it has proven to be a good system of organization.

The article space categories do not mirror this organizational system perfectly. In fact, articles in the philosophy department need a lot of help generally. I am now doing my part by looking at the categories. Obviously, my goal has been to put them into a category structure similar to the task force structure.

I think there has already been an enormous amount of planning, thought, and consideration by many people to make the task force structure possible. I think we can reasonably conclude that it can serve as a model for organizing the article space categories. Furthermore, the proposal was posted at WT:PHILO explicitly for half a month. If anyone had objected we would have heard something by now already either in response to the task force set up or the latest proposal consistent with it.

Please cooperate with the proposal in consideration of the project.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not expect to have the time for this. My current work is concentrated on preventing the mass deletion of biographical articles as an alternative to sourcing them. DGG (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to help. Where is the discussion? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Primarily WT:CSD at the moment, and probably spreading elsewhere. DGG (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy over Kosovo independence

I would be interested in seeing your opinion on this one, if you care to comment. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, I too like the scheme for trying to have a separate article for the more problematic elements of major controversies. I consider these a justifiable fork, as in practice it's the best approach to trying to keep some clean articles. DGG (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Agreed. I missed your point that neutral is not possible, but maybe balance is. Imagine Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

the idea is that we can't give a neutral person view of the conflict, because that doesn't actually give the reader the impression of it; we have to present the views the way the two sides respectively portrayed it. Otherwise it's like a Martian's eye view of human affairs, a technique sometimes used for comic or satirical effect, that can make things appear insignificant. Not everyone agrees with me--its a longstanding disagreement in the interpretation of NPOV. DGG (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I half agree. In theory an article on a controversy could present the different viewpoints in a neutral, non-judgmental way: "He said it tasted like shit^[1]. She said that was no reason to dump it the floor.^[2] The neighbor said ...". The article can report on the dispute without taking sides or coming to any conclusion. But in practice any reader will have built-in prejudices and will be impatient with presentation of arguments they disagree with. Maybe the best test of an article describing a controversy is that everyone will think it is biased but nobody will see any way to improve it. But I have no idea how to ensure balance in an article like this. China has three times the population of the EU. Does that mean the views of Chinese leaders get three times the coverage of the views of European leaders? Of course not, because... I give up. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That question of balance affects all articles on controversial topics. The relevant guideline is UNDUE, but the implementation of it to actual cases has always caused disagreement. Do we balance by the people on each side, by the bulk of the arguments, by which side has the general consensus? in practice, we handle this like other disputes: we balance according to the general weight of effort expended at wikipedia by the various sides, and the extent to which the general community here thinks the opinions are supportable. Say what we will in policy, I can't see how any other result is achievable in a project like this.

More generally, there are no neutral observers. Look on it from outside a while, and you will find yourself supporting one side or another. I find that in trying to achieve neutrality in a dispute as a 3O, which I am asked to do rather frequently--if I stay in the dispute and work on the article, i will inevitably come to sympathize with one of the positions. At that point, it's time to hand it over to someone else. Some people think they are free from this; I rather doubt they have examined themselves sufficiently.

As a result, I have come to support the position that in some cases we should change our policy and do explicit opinion forks; The Turkish view of difficulties between the Turks and Armenians as one article, and the Armenian view as another--to pick a topic I have not actually worked on. Presentation that way is easier, clearer, and fairer. (And there are some topics where in effect we have done just that, but we disguise the titles a little. Don;t ask me which.) DGG (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful opinion. Agreed, nobody is neutral (except me). I can see cases where deliberate forks would work. I suppose the articles on Creationism, Evolution and Creation–evolution controversy suggest a slightly different approach. The Kosovo article is a difficult one. Another tack would be to split out the main sections into separate articles like Debate over status of Kosovo Serbs, Legality of Kosovo independence and Kosovo secession as a precedent, leaving summaries in the main article. That might at least make it easier to focus discussions about neutrality on each aspect of the controversy. Have to think more about it. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I asked for your advice and then instead of focusing the controversial content from other articles into this one, dumped some of the content out onto three other articles (all of which have neutrality warnings) and turned the disputed article into one that just covers the precedent aspect. So I asked for your view and then ignored it? No.

First, I tried to structure the overhauled article and to set a style and internal rules that define a standard for presenting the opposing viewpoints. If someone wants to add another example of why the precedent is good, there is a ready-labeled section for them to add their quote supporting this view. If they want to illustrate why it is bad, there is a section for that too. At least the article is more likely to grow through well-sourced information on the different viewpoints than through edit wars. I hope.

Second, my approach on this AfD article was based on a scan of other articles on Kosovo. There are many, with a great deal of overlap. I may do some splitting and merging. That is, where I see essentially the same aspect covered in three or four different articles, pull the content together into a new and more neutral article, and replace the content in the source articles with a {{main}} link and a short summary. That approach may create some "hot" articles on particularly controversial subjects, but I think will do more towards stabilizing the broader articles of general interest.

POV forks are probably inevitable, maybe sometimes act as safety valves, but it is best to push them as far down the tree as possible - focus them as narrowly as possible. See 1998–present persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo. On subjects like list of captive orcas and landmarks in Buenos Aires I am a mergist, but on controversial ones I am a splittist. Not ignoring your advice. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many equally good ways to arrange most complex topics. The problem is that a single encyclopedia can only do one at a time, and the nature of the problem can sometimes be that there is nothing that is actually a compromise. Thus when two people are pressing incompatible schemes, one must either find a third, or someone must be willing to concede the point. (Where I see this the most is over FA and similar nominations, not AfD. That;s why I usually avoid them & work in the lower depths of AfD, where light on the matter is helpful from any direction.) If someone can do a good comprehensive "main" article, it can accommodate many things, but there have not all that many of our contributors who can successfully manage that degree of complexity. If you can deal with that overall topic in a way that everyone there finds satisfactory as a framework, you will be a hero, and we should send you out to the RW area. After that, Palestine is waiting (both in the RW and here also.). DGG (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Having tried and failed to get an acceptable compromise over the question of whether a stele erected by the 8th century Assyrian Church of the East should properly be called Nestorian, I think I will pass on trying to resolve the Palestinian debate in a way satisfactory to all parties. :~) But it may be possible to make some improvements to the structure of the Kosovo articles. I think a more fragmented structure could work better - may be wrong. Or perhaps I will just move on to quieter topics. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor league baseball player articles

Regarding your edit here, I have two thoughts:

1. While individual teams may have a strong influence on smaller towns, does that means that every player does as well? In that sense, should the town's favorite mailmen, obvious fixtures of the communities, also get articles? There is a limit to how influential local and regional notability should reach WP:BIO.
2. That being said, if we really want to infer individual players with de facto notability, we should really push for a stronger statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines, or a similar action. I'm not for or against this nearly so much as I would like a wider consensus to make a stronger, more concise statement for us to observe.

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

in other fields, it has proven much easier to get consensus on successive afds than on explicit guideline pages. for example there's essentially 80% agreement at afd on schools, but we've never gotten a stable notability guideline for them, because a few people can hold hat up indefinitely. Similarly for shopping centers. All sorts of peoples see the afds, and occasionally comment, only those who care about baseball come to the project, and that's a smaller community.

as for smaller towns, AAA cities are not small towns. Even AA are bigger places than the sort of village that makes a hero of the mailman. I'm quite a skeptic myself about local notability. DGG (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dariusz Zawislak

Its not a spam please look at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1002241/ Dariusz Zawislak http://www.filmweb.pl/o13373/Dariusz+Zawiślak http://www.adyton.eu Would you be consider to back this page or create new based on pl.wikipedia.org - Dariusz Zawiślak Best regards M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MARTHA WARTA 2000 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

no. a combination of spam and lack of claim to notability. DGG (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WOULD YOU CREATE BETTER? M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MARTHA WARTA 2000 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC) what exactly is WRONG filmography? date of birth nationality picture? PLS EXPLAIN M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MARTHA WARTA 2000 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of any evidence that what he has done is notable, based on reliable sources; see our |guide to writing Wikipedia articles. If you can find reviews of his work, try an article, but otherwise it will get deleted again. DGG (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

DEAR SIR PLEASE LOOK AT: http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dariusz_Zawiślak&action=history http://sk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dariusz_Zawiślak&action=history http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dariusz_Zawislak&action=history http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dariusz_Zawislak&action=history HOLDEM MADE WIKIWARS AND ITS PROBABLY PERSONAL ASPECT PLEASE PROTECT NEW ARTICLE THANK YOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk diamond (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What is needed are references providing substantial coverage from third party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases . Articles in the other language Wikipedias are not Reliable sources. I'm sorry, but this is not in the least convincing. I deleted the re-creation of it with the same sources. I have blocked re-creation of it for a while, to give you time to find publishedand independent sources, if any. . DGG (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 21:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

advice? Bill Oberst Jr.

Please take a look and advise: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Bill Oberst Jr. Thank you., Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it amazing that nobody wrote an article on him long ago. I'd describe his roles a little more--with the comments on them in separate paragraphs for each. Try to find comments that explain what he's doing, not just praise him. Is he the person of that name who ran in the United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 1992? details: I think its better not to preserve full caps in refs--there is no need to reproduce the typography. And when you quote a scan, give in the ref the full date & p. of the original so someone could find it if it stops being available online. DGG (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus test on university topics

You previously commented on the RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#Consensus test. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you from BOZ

Thanks for the criticism... sometimes that's more constructive than "me too" votes. About all I can say is, in all honesty, that yes I probably do lack objectivity regarding AFD. Which would probably be a good reason for me to not play around with AFD at all. It was probably my mistake to mention AFD in the first place; I guess I was just trying to think of what admins do, and thus what I might do. As I also said in my response to Black Kite's question is that I may feel much more comfortable dealing with CSD than AFD. Something else for me to think about. :) BOZ (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I did almost no AfDs my first year as an admin, and still do them very rarely, because I would not want to make a keep close that might be questioned when if some other admin made it it would not be questioned. But, since I would have the power, I needed to persuade people i would use it appropriately. See [Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG]. It often turns out that admins end up working in fields they hadn't planned to. I will revisit the RfAdmin, because I wanted to make a strong statement, not really want to derail the nomination--not that I think I would. DGG (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about how you or anyone else might vote, just wanted to make my position (such as it is) clearer to you, since you brought up the point. I can see where you're coming from, that people would call me into question for closing as Keep or No Consensus too often, but you know the same thing happens when an admin who votes Delete most of the time closes a controversial one as Delete. Still, it might be best for me to keep the lid on that can of worms entirely, unless I do happen to gain some more objectivity in the future. :) BOZ (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I recognize you weren't asking me to change my vote. I decided my vote was a little unjustifiably negative. I had been feeling a little uncomfortable with it. DGG (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have switched to support. Shame that the extreme inclusionist front appears keen to derail another currently running RfA. We need more dedicated vandal fighters like Kww, regardless of his philosophy. Black Kite 23:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not good, Kww is a good sort and deserves the mop but my observation is that the admin corps is generally less inclusionist than the community as a whole and that inclusionist candidates always get an easier ride then deletionist ones because, well, like likes to promote like. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I have a feeling of exactly the opposite, that the active admins , at least at AfD, tend to be deletionist. Presumably this means we each feel we aren't quite getting our way enough of the time, a normal sort of feeling for humans.  :) But seriously I think by and large the community is much more inclusionist than not just the admins, but the people at AfD. I think its the normal tendency of regular contributors, but they dont feel courageous enough to speak up at process unless its their own article that is in danger of being deleted. On the other hand, the people who come to afd regularly mainly come there to get rid of unsuitable articles. it is, let me tell you, having done both, much harder to defend than remove a borderline but improveable article. Deletion is so very easy and hides all the problems; curing them takes work. DGG (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there, I just think that certain people (not yourself) are !voting on Kww's RFA on the basis of their philosophy rather than how suitable he is to be an administrator. Personally I'd have been happier if he'd said he would stay away from fiction-basec AfDs, but you can't blame him for not doing so - at least he's being honest. I'd suggest to him to scan AfD log pages early and get a general impression on how they should be closed; if you leave it until there's only a few left on each day's log, the ones left tend to be deletes .... Black Kite 23:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That may well be. There are usually people voting on bad reasons. My experience with the last ones left on a page is that they are not the deletes, but the ones that are so divisive nobody much wants to close them, and face the probable deletion review. I agree, of course, that any new admin should start out closing the easy ones on each side, rather than look for an early opportunity to see how difficult a problem he can solve. DGG (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the DRV ones are the good ones :) But again, probably the ones that new admins shouldn't be closing. Personally I don't have an issue with going to DRV; if the community says I was wrong, then fine - that's what consensus is for. Black Kite 00:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on that. I expect to get some things wrong, unless I do nothing interesting. But some people get really bothered. And it's not the best way to start out.DGG (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would actually like to bury the hatchet on some of these old issues, and have made strides with others on the 'opposite side of the fence' - I will await an answer. I agree that the deletionists are in the majority, both in admin-hood, and in the cabal ranks too for that matter. This was one of the reasons which prompted me into running for arbcom as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've always found that as curious given Category:Deletionist_Wikipedians (228 editors) vs. Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians (940 editors). The majority stated philosophy seems to be inclusionist, but inclusionists do not comment in or close as many AfDs and what have you. Never been sure what to make of that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Call it AfKeeping, and let's see what happens. DGG (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And I voted for you too, because I recognise that you have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind, rather than just spamming "Keep" votes onto AfDs like some members of a certain Wikiproject. (It's a shame for the members of that project that do actually do some good work, like actually fixing articles and finding sources, but a significant number of their members are not helping to be honest - there is at least one new-ish editor who I would quite happily topic-ban from AfD as disruptive.). Mind you, Kww now appears to have annoyed the fringe science crackpots ([6]), so that's the end of that one. Sigh.Black Kite 00:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

Actually, I objected to his views there also, once it had been mentioned. But I'm not going back searching for things to object to, for him or anyone. An admin candidate who hasn't done something at least a little stupid has been playing it safe to a suspicious extent. The question is not has much his views on specific things, but his general temperament and approach. One's own RfAdmin is not the place to bring up unnecessarily multiple major policy changes--it shows a certain lack of common sense. I'm not his enemy, and I hope to vote for him at some future time if he makes it possible. DGG (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schund

Dan Schlund stage 1

I do not understand your decision to delete the article Dan Schlund. You decision should be based on the consensus of the discussion, and such discussion favoured to Keep the article (12 KEEP, 8 DELETE). There was certainly no consensus for delete!

• Users Arcayne, Artw, Collect, Colonel Warden, Esasus, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, LinguistAtLarge, LK, MikeWazowski, Shunpiker, Umbralcorax and Untick all argued to keep the article.
• Only Collectonian, Crusio, Darth Mike, DreamGuy, Reyk, smooth0707, THF, and ThuranX argued to delete or redirect.

Is there a process to have the Dan Schlund discussion/decision reviewed by another admin? And if so, how do I refer the Dan Schlund discussion for a 3rd party review? Thank you. Esasus (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Deletion Review--if you go there, anything can happen. I think you will have a 20% chance of getting an overturn to no-consensus. There will then be a AfD4 in another month ortwo, and the result will almost certainly be delete, because that's the trend of the discussions so far. I discarded all the keep arguments based on over-frequent nomination, because such was not the case. This left only the delete arguments that the sources were inadequate. Examining them, I agreed they were inadequate, so their argument was based on policy. Please see his website before you decide to defend the article further. He now claims his main notability as a "motivational speaker". I have no objection to a redirect to Roketpack or Jetpack. DGG (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me say that I think DGG is completely correct here. (I didn't know you had started closing AfD's DGG, nice work :) ) As you know Esasus, I tried to get the various groups to work out there differences on the article's talk page. As I mentioned there, the Lexis/Nexis search I had done brought up only 2 independent articles in reliable sources that were not trivial mentions. I offered on the talk page to send out the pdfs of these articles; no one took me up on the offer. If anyone had, they would have seen that the coverage seemed to be covered by note 4 and note 6 on the GNG. Generally, I take the position that two reliable sources is enough for a keep, however, this is a good example of an exception. DGG is no rabid deletionist (nor, I hope, am I); he's being generous when he says there's a 20% chance of reversal at DRV. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure of AfD: Dan Schlund

Hi DGG, I'm writing to you to ask you to take a second look at your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Dan Schlund (3rd nomination). Like yourself, I am wary of the tactic of rapid renomination of an article; however in this case, it looks to me like the tactic paid off: That the nominators and the people who supported the nomination didn't hesitate to simply repeat the same or similar arguments across nominations, while some folks on the other side of the discussion made the tactical but understandable mistake of protesting the process rather than reiterating arguments from previous discussions. The key word is "some" -- the closing argument that "almost all the keep arguments are that it was kept twice before" doesn't bear closer inspection. Of the 11 editors who recommended "keep," only 3 took the previous nominations of the article as the basis of their primary or exclusive argument. Even then their arguments were not that the conclusion of previous AfD's implied the worthiness of the article, but that the renomination was flawed. If you were to discount their voices entirely, you would still be a good ways from a consensus for delete, with opinions about evenly divided. (Yes, I know it's not a WP:VOTE -- but even a "rough" consensus should take account of the proportion of sentiment.) In other words, a second nomination within a month failed to generate consensus, but the article was deleted. That's a discouraging precedent. --Shunpiker (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I was aware that some of my friends might not like my closure. I suggest the following, which is what will probably be the conclusion if you carry it to deletion review: to wait for one or two additional really good sources, write a better & more concise focused article in user space, and only then ask for deletion review. I am willing to userify it, with the understanding that you would try again in somewhere between 1 and 4 months. I think you'll have better chances that going to deletion review now. Personally, for most cases of a first non-consensus, I think a nomination delay of a month reasonable (though I generally suggest longer because it increase the chance of having other than a nonconsensus result); this one was three weeks, which I think fair. Non-consensus is not a weak keep, and we should try to find consensus. DGG (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you suggest a reasonable process for reviewing the decision. I don't feel strongly enough about this article to adopt it in my user space -- my concern in this case is more about the process -- but I hope that someone else takes you up on the offer. Thanks for listening, -- Shunpiker (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I avoid closing articles I have any particular investment in--I look for ones I can understand but do not personally care about, where there is a real dispute over what policies are applicable, and whether the article meets it, and I try to reach a fair conclusion. I try to balance things as best i can, and to leave a way for future actions as needed. If someone thinks I've read it wrong, I won't be offended. 05:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund, more

DGG, I believe you've stated that you won't generally close debatable AfDs. You really shouldn't have closed that. Frankly as there is a solid argument that AfDs shouldn't continue to follow one after the other (and this is being discussed at the moment at DrV's discussion page) the arguments that the AfD was too recent is a valid argument and should not be discounted. As the most inclusive of the commonly in AfD admins, I suspect your close won't be overturned. But that's exactly why you shouldn't be closing this. I think anyone else's close of this as delete would be overturned in a heartbeat. It shouldn't be reputation that controls here, it should be policy. Hobit (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't close them in disputed cases where it is a topic where I have a strong general view of some sort, See Q5 at WP:Requests for adminship/DGG, and my reply to the first oppose, who then changed to support. (there's an exception, that I've subsequently said and many others as well in similar cases: I might close if it was against my own views). The question of closely repeated afds came up--this is something I do care about, and I closed opposite my usual view because of the particular circumstances involved, with a full explanation. DGG (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"I think it totally wrong to close debates to favor one's own argument, no matter how strong one thinks the argument: someone else should evaluate it." I think that's exactly what you did. You closed against the !vote on the basis of your belief about this particular topic and the drama associated with it. It may be in opposition to your general view, but I don't like the idea of an admin who will only close controversial AfDs one way (delete in this case). Hobit (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

after throwing out irrelevant arguments. remember that part, please. I remind you again I closed against my general view; what I would regard as wrong would have been to close this AfD with a keep. Look, you will either win the Deletion Review, or not. I have been wrong before, and will be undoubtedly wrong again, as long as I do anything at all. Whether I was wrong this time, is for the community to decide, not you and me. DGG (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Good enough. Could you please look at the sources I've provided on the talk page of the DrV and comment? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I think my comments above went over the line. Sorry. I do believe that this was a bad close, but I think I made it personal. That's not a reasonable/good thing to do. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Result

My closure was upheld DGG (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Any close of that would have been considered a bad close by some of the people there. You said above that any acceptance was due to my reputation--but it would have been my rep as someone who generally tries to avoid deletion. Its clear my overall rep hasn't intimidated anyone, & it will be a sad day if it does. If something passionate must by policy be closed as a delete, better that it be done by someone who does not customarily close all disputed matters as delete. Someone suggested using this as an example for prospective admins. Use this as a test for prospective admins and none of them will get 75% approval, no matter what they say. I made a comment at the end of the Deletion Review just now, which may give a way forward from this.DGG (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! Hobit (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture merge discussion

Informing everyone who participated in the AFD for Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture that a merge discussion is now underway concerning the same material. Please share your comments here Dream Focus 04:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at COMPFUNK2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note my reply

I have replied to your comment here. I think that you have misrepresented my refusal to issue a blanket guarantee, and are not accurately discussing the requirements laid out in WP:INVOLVED.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded. DGG (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply re: my talk

Hi DGG, I do not know what you were referring to in your message on my page on April 1st. I recall Megalithic Geometry being the subject of some discussion somewhere, but I was unable to locate it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I found it here. Thanks for the apology. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas J. Scheff

Hi David. When.if you have a moment and/or interest, can you have a quick peek at this article, please? I just declined a poorly thought out speedy but I don't understand the professor standards for notability. I'm happy to clean it up if you think the article is worth saving. I'm leaning towards notable, but like I said, I don't know the standards all that well. Thanks! StarM 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

good to do a little editing after a frustrating day here doing everything else but. Since he has multiple honorary degrees, he's unquestionably notable. It took me a while to find that in the article, but full professors at UC generally are. The mixing up of books and articles and UTube videos didn't help, either. The article as submitted was a copy and paste CV, as the formatting made fairly clear, so I rewrote it. The alternative would be looking for the copyvio source and deleting, but he's notable enough that there should be an article. I do not really blame someone for putting a speedy tag on a mess like it was. DGG (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything OK? PLease let me know if there's something I can do to help. I'm about to head into work and won't be able to log in here, but I check e-mail so feel free to use that. I've been working on an article for the first time in eons -- Shaun O'Hara. Fun to work on a topic I love even though I know nothing about the football MOS and it will need some clean up, but at least now it has content. Re: Scheff I knew it was likely a copyvio but he seemed notable so I'd rather see what I could salvage. I'm tired of A1/A3 being used for 'I don't want to fix this so lets speedy it'. There were a few in the queue like that last night and rather than getting cranky, I just closed the CSD cat. Have a great day and thanks again StarM 12:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For him, sure. Foreverything I'm involved in--of course not all of it is OK. The CSD problem yesterday was due to one particular overenthusiastic user who shows up every few days. The problem in teaching him is that about 1/3 of his bad or dubious CSDs are deleted by admins nonetheless. I checked all his pending ones before I stopped for the night. DGG (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh ok, not sure who your problem CSDer is. I probably need to scroll up here. Sometimes I just prefer to play and ignore the admin world. StarM 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(from my talk p.16:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

100 Greatest

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:List of America's 100 greatest golf courses‎‎.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'd really like your guidance with this. Only one editor, the author, has debated the topic, yet I feel you chastised me for speedy-ing it based on the fact that "if one knows an article is going to be debated, it is not appropriate to take it here first in the hope of short-circuiting it." I felt that was a bit overkill considering the only debate was coming from the author. As of the time, the author had not indicated notability for inclusion or that it didn't violate Wikipedia's "not" policy on indiscriminate lists of information. I had actually redirected the article myself and suggested the author do so as well, but the author reverted my redirect (which reinstated my speedy). I have no issues with a redirect, but I feel a stand-alone article is not meet criteria for inclusion. Thanks for any help! --13² 04:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, i wouldn't say i blamed you,I gave my view that it would probably have been better to go direct to AfD. In the past, such lists of the top 100 whatever have in fact been hotly debated. They have, actually, been deleted more often than they have been kept. I haven't the least idea what way the decision will go on this one--there are some unique elements, such as it being currently unpublished by the primary publisher. There are two questions, notability and copyright. The question of whether these are notable is i for rationale for afd, not speedy--this is not the type of article whose notability can be decided by speedy--only the ones listed in CSDA7 can be. Thje copyright question is considerably more intricate. There are some strong feelings that such lists are always copyvio, but some people think otherwise. In a case like this, the simplest thing is to go directly to a community decision. I didn't actually mean to blame you for anything, just give my opinion on a point that was raised on the talk p. already--if you took it otherwise, I apologize. Let me think about the redirect possibility. As you saw, I suggested a few others also. DGG (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Objective opinion on two more category deletions?

I've got a bit of a mess on my hands here with two user categories and I'd like your opinion if you have a moment to go over the material. It looks like I'll also be moving forward with a DRV on these since I just heard back from the closing admin. I had really hoped to avoid the mess the DRV is likely to create...sigh
The categories involved are Category:Wikipedians who use irssi and Category:Wikipedians who use mIRC. I finished reworking them on March 25th and the very next day Killiondude attempted to have them deleted while working a WP:UCFD backlog. There had been a proposal to delete and upmerge these to Category:Wikipedians who use IRC on UCFD in Dec 2008. The UCFD discussion was started on December 21, 2008 and closed January 13, 2009 and had a total of two "votes"; one as the nominator and one "per nom". (The nominator, VegaDark now also wants to merge/delete Category:Wikipedians who use XChat [7] which I just finished rebuilding after it was undeleted.)
Resulting discussion took place on Black Falcon's talk page and then picked back up on my talk page. There was also some related discussion on Killiondude's talk page, ABCD's talk page, and MBisanz's talk page.
I may also ping David Eppstein as I know he would also be impartial and also give me a straight opinion. Considering a number of people have alluded to me being "off my rocker" for pursuing this issue, I figure a couple impartial opinions would be a good thing to have before moving forward.
Now, if I could go just one week without someone pulling out a can opener...
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good to know who uses what so you can go to someone for help. This is a reason for keeping all computer-related categories, just as for language. The principal of that is important. Myself, I hate IRC. But I know enough to know that the different clients work differently. DGG (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There seems to have been movement afoot over at WP:UCFD to delete all user categories that were not directly related to or somehow "useful to" Wikipedia. The only guideline documentation I can find related to this is in the first section of WP:USERCAT. While I don't think we need categories such as Category:Wikipedians who own neon green sweaters I don't understand the mass-purge of "Wikipedians ..." categories for things that serve a clear purpose and are considered useful to many who work on various parts of Wikipedia.
Our of curiosity, why do you hate IRC? I personally don't like it for Wikipedia stuff mainly due to the lack of transparency. I tend to stay away from the freenode network and Wikipedia channels for this very reason.
--Tothwolf (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

there has indeed been such movement. I think it a little absurd, but so they do conduct the arguments so I replied based on the assumption people would say that: The benefit to the community is that many of the community use IRC for Wikipedia, and this way you know whom to ask. Like when you need someone who knows Esperanto, or Greek. As for IRC, I like a time delay between hearing and responding, and i like being able to pick what i want to pay attention to when i want to pay attention to something. These were the great advantages of email over the phone. DGG (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you refer me to one or more impartial admins who would be willing to help clean this mess up? VegaDark just left another comment on my talk page and I'm really getting tired of trying to deal with this mess. I did uncover exactly what he was up to with these categories though. He is attempting to establish precedents and draft a guideline for user category deletions. This whole thing smells pretty bad but I'm not really sure where to go with it. About the only thing is he doing is taking away from the limited amount of time I have to edit and further discouraging me from working on anything. Tothwolf (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I pinged Dank55 earlier and now VegaDark is wikistalking. He will probably be over here next. Sigh. Tothwolf (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be waiting. The only real solution to UCfD is a long term one: to get more attention to the "minor" XfDs. As for the issue at hand, the solution is another general discussion about the purpose of UCats. I just said on Dank's tallk p. that although I have not much faith in the right thing happening at Del Rev, it probably is the only step to go here. DGG (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that UCFD was recently merged into CfD may help in that regard but the potential downside is people who already dislike categories may vote to delete user categories because they will now be more visible. My concerns with taking this particular issue to DRV is it is likely to become very uncivil. The mIRC users category contains better than 250 users and a good many of them wouldn't like the way VegaDark had handled this any more than I do. Btw, are you following the Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth CfD since it was relisted after the DRV? Tothwolf (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're seriously claiming you haven't taken this to DRV, after I've asked you time and time again to do so, so that I won't look bad? That's laughable. VegaDark (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

VegaDark, Do you want to take this to AN/I and ARB? [8] [9]
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wherever the two of you take it, please take it some place other than here. DGG (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

DGG, will do, moving over to my talk page right now. I appreciate your earlier input. VegaDark only came over here to stir things up further anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Prehistory and protohistory of Poland

I would like to renominate this for GAC, but it could use a copyedit by somebody with English proficiency for prose issues. Would you mind, or would you mind referring this to sombody who could? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead section is the main problem. I know you can do far better, as you often have, so rewrite it essentially completely, and then I'll touch things up. DGG (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanded lead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will try something tonight, and you will see how far I get. DGG (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In return, please look at Proto-Ukrainians. DGG (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re writers on New York Press

You may be interested in this. Unomi (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at New York Press might be more closely related, as discussion should take place in the appropriate venue. Yours, Verbal chat 10:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I restored the paragraph to the NYPost article, leaving a note at its talk p. The mentions in the others article I havent worked on, at least not yet.. Trying to get consensus for restoring the main article will be up to someone else. DGG (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

From Critic11

I don't know how to talk back to you re: The Purple Jar. Can you tell me what to do or is this right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critic11 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

this is fine here. DGG (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

unbuilt routes

List of unbuilt autoroutes of Quebec, This is to put all info under one "hat". It has to be fleshed out by the cooperation of all Wikis in Quebec and this will take some time and a lot of background research and that will take some time and doing. Obviously individual articles of unbuilt autoroutes is uncalled for. In the mean time I found a number of "bum links" (silly links) in the articles of existing autoroutes of Quebec. Peter Horn 19:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I had to correct that first link. Peter Horn 19:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you put in whatever you have, right now, for just the outline of an article is unlikely to be kept at AfD. if you wait till your research is complete, the article will probably no longer be around. If so, just make it again when ready, but I think it's usually easier and better to start with as sourced stub having some information and then expand it. It encourages others to help add, as they come across it. DGG (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA Carlossuarez46

Thanks for the follow-up question. Have a good Holiday. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Malta articles

• I don't think it's fair for you to close the discussion abruptly. When you say that it is "likely" that there are different degrees of notability, it suggests to me that you did not actually look at any of these articles. Most of these are by the same editor, who took it upon himself to mass produce articles under some notion that every possible combination of relations between two nations would be notable. As an administrator, you need to avoid substituting your personal preferences for those of the participants in a debate. Mandsford (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I didnt close the discussion, I asked that it be divided. Please do renominate them individually. Other group nominations of these have been divided also. I will probably vote to delete most or possibly all of them, though usually I've been not bothering to pile on to the deletes for similar articles.. You speak as if i had been !voting to keep them routinely. I did !vote to keep Malta-Italy just now, on the basis of special circumstances which I specified in my post. I came there responding to a request at WP:ANB], that I thought legitimate. If you want to carry the discussion on there, that would be the place. DGG (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't have much time to review them as I had a talk to give today, but probably most are unnotable, or at least a monoglot anglophone like me won't be able to demonstrate it. Montenegro-Malta is probably not in that boat, and Bosnia-Malta may not be either. Some surprises have come out of left field, too, I was surprised to find Greece and Nepal have significant relations, anyhow. But the precedent would be terrible, bundling them does essentially dash any chance of meaningful discussion. WilyD 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We should probably change the instructions, to more clearly limit bundling to instances where it is obvious the individual instances are equally deletable, or where an article and related articles are most usefully considered together because the discussion will bear equally on them all. I think many such bundles go unchallenged because nobody cares to check the details, and we are deleting among them some articles that could be rescued. The rule at least should be that if anyone objects in good faith to a group nomination, they must be unbundled. DGG (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This would make sense to me, though I am obviously an invested party with a suspect opinion. WilyD 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Now see how many of the batch you can save, thus justifying the effort. DGG (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. With so many accounts convinced bilateral relations are inherently nonnotable, it's an uphill struggle. WilyD 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody thinks that. What they think--as do I--is that they will be presumed nonnotable unless there is some substantial non-trivial information DGG (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

Austria-Egypt has been the subject of no less than four conferences with published proceedings. Can you really imagine someone who'd argue to delete that would ever argue keep? WilyD 12:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That someone might judge one article carelessly or even in an inexplicable manner does not mean they are always equally careless or always judge oddly, and in any case almost nobody is completely consistent. There's no regular Wikipedian active at AfD or similar process with whom I do not agree a good deal of the time. There's certainly nobody except some SPAs who consistently do everything totally wrong. Wikipedia process works best when there's wide participation--the sensible people who don't especially care in the issue come and have a look at things. DGG (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology-related issues

I hope you are doing well since we last e-mailed. Since that time I have continued to work on dermatology-related topics, and hope that I am improving as an editor. With that being said, I wanted to get your feedback on a couple of dermatology-related issues.

First, I have been working on the list of skin-related conditions and wanted to know if you would proofread the lead text for me, particularly the last paragraph. I have been trying to improve my writing such that it is accessibile for a general audience, and, if available, I would appreciate your feedback.

Secondly, at WP:MED I brought up the issue regarding notable dermatologists, which resulted in the deletion of Rashid M. Rashid and another article. However, there are multiple dermatologist articles that I think lack notability, and so I wanted to know if perhaps you would help me review Category:Dermatologists and weed through which are notable and which are not? Also, in the process, I would like to create a list of notable dermatologists (I am not sure what the article should be titled?).

Third, and finally, I think a general category "dermatologists" is needed, but not necessarily subcats based on nationality... what do you think? Regardless, thanks again for your work on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

first, Categories: they should normally follow the general pattern for the subject, and almost all the Medical doctors by speciality supercategory is divided by nationality. The individuals should in fact be entered only in that subcategory, not in both that and the main category, and the ones in the main category moved to the appropriate nationality.Thesubcat, a,meerican dermatologists, should be added.

The criteria for academic position are as in WP:PROF. In essence, full professors (though not necessarily full research professor or full clinical professor-- and certainly not an adjunct professors at any rank), in a major medical school will generally though not automatically qualify as being authorities in their profession, as is usually shown by publications and the citations to them--the numbers required depend on the publication practice in the particular subject. if it's a named or distinguished professorship, or the tradition professor=head of department in the UK, that always qualifies. Being editor in chief of a major journal, or head of a major national society also always quality. Of course, membership in the National Institute of Medicine or equivalent organizations elsewhere also qualifies. For people whose notability is in practice, it's a little trickier. the rules about societies/editorships/honors applies to them. In the past, we've usually been able to justify the head of service in a major hospital. They will of course often hold positions in a med school as well. Another factor that is sufficient is being a principal author of one of the major and widely used textbooks. Whether head of sub-speciality societies is sufficient depends on the importance of that society & is often questioned.

Having a syndrome named after oneself usually works, but not if the work otherwise is minor, & the name is only used in a few published articles.

the sort of notability in the community that comes from local publicity does not usually qualify, nor in my opinion should it qualify. Dermatology, as all fields engaging in cosmetic surgery, is a field in which physicians extensively advertise, because they are paid privately for these procedures. There is therefore a very high level of scrutiny for such material.

A list of notable dermatologists includes those with Wikipedia articles, or who would obviously be qualified for them. If they don't have the article yet, make sure the qualification is stated. It is also possible to do an article on a national society, listing the successive presidents (but not other officers). State and other sub-national societies don't count.

I think most of the people presently in the category clearly qualify, though some of the articles need cleaning of promotional material. I think we have removed a number of the most promotional bios already. Remember that a dermatologist who is a MP or a state legislator, or a notable musician, is notable for Wikipedia on that basis, but will also be listed in the category for his profession as a physician. i'd take a closer look at Stough, Geronemus, Shamban. Some of the other professionalluy weak ones are in Wikipedia for other reasons. Klein was kept, though I wasnt happy about that. No reason not to try again. Historical figures raise other problems--I think the need here is to enter more of them. The ones in almost all seem to qualify. DGG (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oliver DeMille being discussed at WP:BLP/N

Since I mentioned your name, here is the link. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed some text from this. I think you will agree with my rationale on the talk page. It can be fixed and replaced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do not agree, except for a single word, as I commented there; I suggested a revised text on the article talk p. Given the number of places this has been under discussion. I think it better to not comment further here, but only at noticeboard and the article talk page,and whatever other place other people may use. DGG (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(note: we have since exchanged view on this, and I think we do not disagree on how to deal with the article). DGG (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I wasn't around when you requested assistance; I would have blocked him as well - I see he has since been unblocked but hasn't caused further problems I hope. Take care & thanks for thinking of me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Vega

Replied to you there. Black Kite 11:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• And on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salah Brahimi. Black Kite 12:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

AdjustShift RfA

You mentioned something that concerns me on the AdjustShift RfA, but you give no link to it. I searched his/her edit history and looked through the answers and have no idea what you are talking about, please elaborate.

Just for my interest, I was looking at my edit summary and it has a category called "deleted edits." What are deleted edits? Reversions? --KP Botany (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I had the wrong question number there and i fixed it. I'm not sure its important enough to oppose though, & I may change to neutral. DGG (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What edit are you referring to? I think that may be how something shows up now when there's been oversight. There's a deleted contributions page, accessible from the user contributions page, for edits you've made on articles that have subsequently been deleted, but they show up only to admins. Do you want to see your list--no reason why I couldnt email it. DGG (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Q16, thanks.

Yeah, sure e-mail it to me. But mine had something like 750 deleted edits out of 9800 total edits. I wish I could find the page again that I used. My edits are rather innocuous to get almost 10% of them deleted. --KP Botany (talk)

If you place a tag, such as a delete tag, on a page, that edit gets moved here when the page is deleted. It merely means edits on articles or their talk pages that have gotten deleted,such as Herb usage, or Psychiatric abuse which were AfDd, with you arguing Delete. If the page was later rewritten, as an article or a redirect, the edits to the deleted versions remain listed here, but as bluelinks. what moist of the list is, though, is the material from your talk page when you had it deleted in 2007. My % is about the same as yours. What I'll be sending is the list with edit summaries, not the edits themselves. rtf format, as an attachment. Prefer something else?DGG (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Send it a word doc, unless rtf is something I don't have to think about to open. Send it to my en.wiki KP account if you haven't sent it elsewhere already. I'll check. --KP Botany (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I gave it a try. Its in the message (attachments do not work from Wikipedia mail). Tested it on my gmail, & its readable. (click view entire message, at bottom) Let me know. DGG (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I see why there are so many. I almost always edit articles up for deletion even when they will be deleted, which means, I have a lot of edits to deleted articles, plus I discuss ways of editing on the talk page, and I often discuss them with their creators, again, even when the article will be deleted, or I'm voting for deletion. That and my twice-yearly user page temper tantrum covers most of them. A couple of funny ones, but nothing too interesting. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, here it is. --KP Botany (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've voted support. If you've any suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

if you ever need help, please ask, on-wiki or by email, though on-wiki is faster. first advice: start of slow, avoid controversial subjects at first, and master one field at a time. DGG (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. AdjustShift (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

good thinking

With regard to your comments at the Deletion Review for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations, I would like to agree wholeheartedly that it would be incredibly helpful if people looked for references before nominating (and voting) instead of leaving it all to WilyD, who is only one guy. You might wish to examine Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand–Ukraine relations to better understand my point of view on these things. Hilary T (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually forget any suggestions of compromise. Given BlueRaven's edit summaries, I'm going create as many articles he doesn't like as possible for as long as possible, and I'm sure if I get banned from bilateral relations I can find something else. Hilary T (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignore them, Are you here to write, or to fight? the best way to prove you're right is to create articles that show that you're right. Essentially everyone here is open to being convinced by that. DGG (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want revenge now. Hilary T (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

If you act on that basis, you will soon be blocked from contributing, and very rightly so. You may accept that, but it will also harm the possibility of anyone working on these articles, because such actions will taint them. DGG (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting new article

Physics envy. Rather surprised it wasn't already an article, but maybe you have some time to edit it some. Could be really good article on interesting topic. I have no time. --KP Botany (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:The Rambling Man#What's up?

The Transhumanist 23:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of philosophical theories, the editor who created the nominated page mentioned that the material he used to create that list was previously AfD'd.

Therefore, the page is subject to speedy deletion (WP:G4).

Had I known this, I would have tagged it for speedy instead of nominating it for AfD. What should I do now? Withdraw the nom, and tag the article for speedy?

The Transhumanist 23:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

not quite the same contents or list rationale, as I replied there. though I do admit that I haven't the least idea of how best to handle this particular list. DGG (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of symphonies by number

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of symphonies by number, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

While updates made by [User:DGG] have improved this page, especially in making it less repetitive, it still does not prove especially informative. For instance, Bruckner did not write a "Symphony No. 0", rather he wrote a symphony before his first publicly numbered one which was re-discovered, and dubbed "die Nullte" (the "zeroth"). I believe that listing "symphonies by number" in this way encourages misconceptions about the way composers actually worked. Again, while I think it's important to list, say, all "Symphony No. 1"s, the various separate pages do this, and the Symphonies template links to these pages.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Thanks for your edits! I'm still not entirely convinced of the value of this page though, for the reasons I've outlined. EvanCortens (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I have looked at the list of symphonies by number, as well as the lists of symphonies of particular numbers. I see zero value to any of them—why not list them by the number of movements, or pages in the score, or size of the orchestra for which they are written? Can you suggest of what potential use these articles would be? Bongomatic 02:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Because people, especially the less musically sophisticated people, tend to know them that way; the more sophisticated seem to refer to them more by their key, or by the Opus., K. number, or whatever. If not really involved, they might even remember the number without immediate remembering the composer: "I think they were playing something called the eight symphony--whose would it have been likely to be?" Any list that facilitates finding or browsing is useful, and useful is the key criterion for lists. Lists of lists, such as the article in question, are a good form of organization. This particular one is especially good in giving the most likely composers also, which you'll never manage in a category. If someone can imagine a way of organizing material, and if a few other people also think its useful (ie, it's not wholly idiosyncratic and irrational), it is. It doesn't have to be useful to everyone. the fraction of the lists in Wikipedia that are not useful to me run at about 80%. But looking at a few now, perhaps it might be more like 60%. There's a lot of ways of doing things that I would never have though of. DGG (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I had considered the possibility you mention, but if the person didn't recall the composer (by your hypothesis), since Wikipedia doesn't have audio samples (let alone of all the key themes / movements), it's hard for me to see this of being any use. On the other hand, doing a search at hmv.com or tower.com where you can search by "Symphony #x" and then hear the movements, would seem to me both a more likely approach for a reader to take, and a more useful one, no matter how comprehensive this list becomes. Bongomatic 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could add things like "na na na, na na na, na na na naaa, na na na, na na na, na na na naaa" (Mozart 40, to my way of reading) to the individual articles under the movements. Seriously, though, have you used www.themefinder.org? I found Beethoven's 4th piano concerto with "P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 -M2 P1 P1 P1". Bongomatic 03:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also query by tapping , and I think by whistling, and true audio search --see Musipedia. I'd absolutely love to have this integrated. Wikipedia does have musical samples now, & i look forward to having them for all significant works. We already have categories and lists of musical works by key, etc. Probably you dislike every one of these, and I'm not going to point you to the ones that exist, for fear of BEANS. I'd like a true visual search too for our images. In the meantime we can have lists of art works of flowers, people, horses, etc., and true descriptors for each of the commons images.. This is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and follows the rule that if other encyclopedias have it, so do we. DGG (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your input solicited...

...here. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(Twilight zone episodes) DGG (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kevin_Bonavia_(2nd_nomination)

I nominated this article for deletion and in doing so discovered it had already been nominated (but the process had not been completed). I have completed the initial nomination and requested the above linked page be deleted. Unfortunately you appear to have come to it when my nomination was still linked from the article; could I ask that you transfer your comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Bonavia? Thanks! I42 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

done, and I deleted that other page as housekeeping.DGG (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I42 (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oliver DeMille merge to A Thomas Jefferson Education

I removed both tags, as they' appeaf irrational to me. TJE is one of the leading methods of homeschoolsing and worth an article, while deMille's career is very much broader than that. If you put back the tags, discuss, DGG (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I did discuss it at the OD talk page ([10]). I would appreciate it if you would discuss this next time first before removing. --TrustTruth (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, you did introduce the subject, and you were the only person who argued for it. DGG (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

= COI? question about banning

What is a COI? What about my article makes it look like a coatrack? Doesn't everybody have a way of making a living? I put an external link into my forum for sufferers of MAV (which has no direct or indirect links to my business), because I found my first forum for MAV through an external link on Wikipedia. It about saved my life! I had no idea it would considered spam, or in any other way suspicious.--Julcal (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Inserting paragraphs about its product and links to your company in Wikipedia articles is not acceptable, and you must know it. We do not do promotion, and you will have to advertise elsewhere. For some guidance to what is acceptable, see our FAQ about businesses. DGG (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about banning

What does COI mean? What about my article makes it look like a coatrack? I wrote an article about MAV so that sufferers might find information about what is going on with them. When I was in the same boat, I found my first forum through an external link on Wikipedia pointing to a forum. So, I thought it was okay. Now when I do the same thing, I'm called a spammer and am told I will be banned. About my article being a coatrack - my forum does not directly nor indirectly point to my business.

COI means conflict of interest. Read the page I suggested. also read WP:COI. For the standards for links, see WP:EL. And if you post here, post at bottom, within this section that is already started, the way the instructions say. DGG (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. As I've written in a few places. The way I found my way to my first MAV forum was through an external link, on Wikipedia. I saw many external links in other Wiki articles. My external link was only to a forum which has no links, directly or indirectly to a business but it was removed in less than 24 hours. So I do not understand the COI. Regarding the battling. As HelloAnnyong says, Studio34 "keeps harassing" me.--Julcal (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

Mutual_topicban_proposal on ANI

Since both editors do not agree on the proposal between A Nobody and Jack, I am putting it to a community !vote:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mutual_topicban_proposal

Please take the time to make your voice be heard. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on my RfA

Hi. Sorry to bother you about such a small thing, but I'm still very puzzled by your statements about my history of conflict with Ottava Rima. I'm not aware of any past conflicts with him and he says the same, although his reactions to my RfA certainly would suggest otherwise. I've looked for evidence of past negative interactions, and the closest things I can find to conflicts with him are at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 36#Proposal and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 38#DYK credit and trinket_collecting - consider deleting Wikipedia:DYKBEST. Neither one looks like a serious interpersonal conflict to me. Can you recall what it is that led you to make this observation -- and repeat it? --Orlady (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I was wondering if you were confusing me (or him) with someone else, but your explanation makes sense. --Orlady (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

BTYW, congratulations! DGG (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Star Wars

Please reply to the comments that I have left here. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 08:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

thatks for letting me know, especially as we work from rather different starting points. Perhaps there;s a middle. DGG (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Next step?

There seems to be overwhelming community support for: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mutual_topicban_proposal_community_.21vote, except for #4, what is the next step? Ikip (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious that I cannot actually do anything myself. The next step is to ask some uninvolved person to decide whether to state it as a conclusion. Whether it needs to go to AE is something i have no experience with, so you should ask someone there who does. My own view of Arbitration is that good results are rarely obtained there. My advice, which may be wholly naive, would be to go there only if the ban is violated, but more experienced people may say otherwise. DGG (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody. I will ask the admin who wanted to be the medator in this case. It is troubling what is going on with Dream Focus too now. Ikip (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult to work here, and care about something, and maintain perspective. It does not come naturally. And when there are people on the other side willing to exploit weaknesses, then it results in Mobbing. DGG (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

@DGG; the next step is talk per this; please note yon proposal is in no way binding. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cfd-notify

Per the discussion at Template talk:Cfd-notify#Expand usage, I added an optional parameter for WikiProject notifications. I have raised some questions at the talk page regarding what instructions to include in the documentation page and how to organize the instructions, and your comments would be most appreciated. (I have also notified Kbdank71 here.) Cheers, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Two Sicilies independence movement

Would you consider having a look at admin splitting the "joint AfD" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Sicilies independence movement? This is more clear cut than the X - Y relations as a case where the AfD needs to be splitt. Pretty much no one seems to think the same for both and the second title was added AFTER the AfD was opened and commented on! Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No matter how well justified, I'm not the person to ask, considering that Deletion Review overturned my last split. Please ask some other admin. I will however comment there. DGG (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess so. I'll turn to MBisanz for comment. I still think you were right by the way. :-/ Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 21:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Update on the Outline of knowledge WikiProject & Geography WikiProject (Country outlines workgroup) - 04/16/2009

Momentum in the development of the outlines is continuing to build, even though we haven't added any new outlines lately. Plenty of work is being done on the outlines we already have.

Keep up the good work everyone!

Inspiration!

Kudos go to Buaidh, who has dived head first into outline development, continuing improvement of the country outlines, and doing so vigorously. Take a look at his contribs. He has taken the initiative and has been expanding those outlines' design and coverage. Be sure to let him know what you think of his work!

Coming soon: the Super Huge Expansion (it will be really really big)

Excitement (mine at least) is building as we approach the Super Huge Expansion, during which notices will be placed on thousands of subject talk pages and their corresponding WikiProjects (see below concerning which ones). Though not all on the same day! - this will take place over a period of weeks or months, because it's best not to open the flood gates all at once.

The existing outlines should serve as strong examples for editors who wish to develop new outlines, and so we need to complete them as much as we can before we start to take this to the next level (in about 3 months). The rewrite of the outline article (the draft, which explains outlines in detail), and the guideline on outlines and outline development, also need to be completed before the transcendence begins. These will help guide the decisions and actions of editors, and reduce confusion.

An optional request to help me better understand notability for PROF

I'd like some clarification (not a ruling, but more a rationale) why one educator might pass WP:PROF and another might not. You participate in deletion process a bunch, so seem to have evolved good instincts. The two Afds are: Robert Boylestad and James E McWilliams. I would concede that the self-request for deletion might influence my decision, but I'm asking to compare these two processes solely on the basis of notability per WP:PROF. I see you've weighed in on one of these already, so I could understand why you might choose not to enter this arena. In any case, thanks for the yeoman work you do in this area. We've disagreed in the past and I learned something in the process, which is usually a good sign for me. BusterD (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Professors have a special notability guideline, which is an alternative to WP:BIO. The basis is that just as artists are notable by the art works, teachers are notable by their teaching, and researchers by their research For Boylestad the notability is not in research, but in one of the aspects of teaching--writing widely used textbooks. For McWilliams, its the multiple research articles and books. The importance of research books is judged by their publisher and their citations, which show the acceptance of notability in the field. Three university press books for a historian is more than enough enough for tenure at the best of universities--two is more usual for an Associate professor. I didnt check the citations, because it seems unnecessary. Personally, I totally disregard a person's desire for a bio to be removed unless there is a good reason. The WP rule is that it applies only to the "relatively unknown", but in my view the relatively unknown don't even get articles. Relatively unknown, means as compared to others in the field, not as known to newspaper writers. Similarly,painters is notable if several paintings are in permanent collections of major museums, whether or not we know a thing about their life. A person who participated in the Olympics is notable, even if he hid from the newspapers, as long as we can prove his athletic record. The fact that in some fields of human endeavor people make damn sure the papers write about them might affect those professions, but it doesn't affect these. In fact, if one uses presence in news type sources, what we get for academics and a number of other fields is primarily the people who engage in publicity. the GNG is a convenience, because it usually works. It's only a guideline, with multiple exceptions both notable and non-notable, because it does not always work. It's a surrogate when we have nothing better to use, but in some fields we do. I made a similar argument in denying the notability of an athletic team with newspaper reports on the costumes, but of no athletic importance. they're not notable, except in a tabloid sense, and WP is not a tabloid. I am definitely a deletionist when it comes to people using Wikipedia for publicity: it destroys our credibility. People trust us in good part because we do not permit advertising, especially disguised as articles. DGG (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing so much of your thoughts on the matter. I see one professor emeritus and one relatively new teacher, and to my mind the older teacher, who has lectured to untold thousands of students seems more notable under WP:PROF than a newer lecturer who has written for academic periodicals extensively. I see that you've now weighed in at AfD asserting both pass the WP:PROF bar. The reason I asked is because it seemed the early arguments in Boylestad were asserting he wasn't notable, and to my mind the single textbook reprinted over and over (implying wide use) constitutes sufficient notability. Thanks again for your process. Each time I dip my foot in this stuff, I'm making a point of learning something new. BusterD (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Projected outline, at the OOK WikiProject page

What's next? Where is the Outline of knowledge headed?

Well, it will grow, to encompass all of human knowledge.

But, is there a plan?

YES!!!

Currently under construction on the Outline of knowledge WikiProject page is a version of the outline that will display links to all the outline pages currently in the encyclopedia proper, links to all outline drafts, and redlinks to all planned outline drafts.

You can help. Please place links to the remaining drafts in there (with complete pagenames so we can easily tell they are drafts). Once all the draft pages are placed, please look over the overall outline for gaps in coverage, and add missing subjects. I expect there are thousands of missing subjects extensive enough to benefit from being outlined. New subjects should be included as red draft links. Thank you.

But it's not just an editing task list...

During the upcoming "Super Huge Expansion" (mentioned above), the article talk page and WikiProject for each of the subjects listed on the projected outline will receive a notice requesting the creation and development of the outline page for that subject. Each notice will also explain how a subject's outline will integrate into the Outline of knowledge and into Wikipedia's navigation system as a whole.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge#Projected outline.

Topic lists

The nice thing about a reverse outline is that it turns up problems that exist in the publication being outlined, which provides opportunities to fix them. Since we get very little or no opposition to fixing problems even on sets of hundreds of pages, we've been plowing through them.

One of the biggest problems in Wikipedia that our work on the Outline of knowledge has uncovered so far is with the set of topics lists. Their titles, in the forms "List of x topics" and "List of x-related topics" are ambiguous, and they are not the most common terms for describing their content. See WP:COMMONNAME. To make matters worse, the set is divided between 2 competing types/sets of pages: alphabetical indexes, and outlines.

In an effort to sort out this mess, the indexes are being renamed, and the outlines are being reformatted and moved, or merged, into the Outline of knowledge.

So far, almost 300 topic lists have been renamed to indexes. Nobody has objected to the names chosen, but one editor has expressed reservation on the approach - he was concerned it would cause confusion by having 2 title standards in place at the same time for these. Though he himself was not confused, nor did he object to the titles. And nobody else has expressed confusion or dissatisfaction with the new titles either. It has been over 2 weeks since the renaming has begun, and since no confusion seems to have been caused, and since there is no opposition to the new names, I plan to continue with the renaming.

Also, one topic list has been merged into its corresponding outline so far: List of transport topics was merged into Outline of transport. It turned out very good. List of cell biology topics is currently being merged into Outline of cell biology (see the link dump in hidden comments at the end of the outline).

I'm not sure how many lists have "topics" in their titles, but Google turned up 788, and these appear to include the ones that have already been renamed to indexes. Subtracting those renamed so far, there are about 500 more to go.

Watching tips

I thought you might want to compare notes on the methods we use to watch over the outlines. Here's how I keep an eye on things...

My watchlist had so many thousands of articles in it that I finally just deleted them all. Now I have it set so that I have to manually add pages to be watched, and I use it only to watch trouble spots and collaborations I'm participating in.

Because I like to watch specific sets of pages at a time, I use "Related changes" on list pages. That way the results are not watered down with edits from pages I'm not immediately concerned with.

I always use WP:POP and Related changes together. With POP installed, you go to a link list, like User:Buaidh/Country outlines of the Americas, then click on "Related changes" in the toolbox menu, and then hover the mouse cursor over the diff and hist links so you can look at those without clicking on them.

It's pretty fast.

The technique turns Wikipedia's list system into a crystal ball.

Update Scanner

Penubag recommends Update Scanner, which is a Firefox add-on that periodically scans pages and pings you when a change is detected. You can even set its level of sensitivity for each scanned page (e.g., "ignore changes of 100 words or less").

I'd use it, but I don't have a computer.  :(

See also WP:OTS for more power tools and techniques, and User:Penubag/optimum toolsets for some more nice addons, that do a variety of things.

I'm always looking for new power tools and power skills, so if you know of any, please share (let me know)!

[[User talk:The Transhumanist|The Tr Outline of energy (it converted great)

1. List of Dewey Decimal classes --> Outline of Dewey Decimal classes (no conversion)
2. Library of Congress Classification --> ??? (no rename, no conversion)

The last 2 are outlines by their very nature, and so our standard outline subheadings didn't seem to fit. So I left them as is.

I renamed the first 2, but the last one is the name of the outline, that is, the topic itself is an outline, and that outline is presented as the article's content, so I left the name as is. For now. This needs more thought.

Of course, that's not all. Concerning those last 2 outlines above...

Alternate outlines of knowledge

...not only are they outlines, but they are outlines of knowledge! Well, the top few levels, at least.

Uh, so?

What happens if we linkify them?  :)

That is, what happens if we linkify their classifications to Wikipedia's outlines?  :)   :)   :)

They become alternate top ends to the OOK

Yep.

What can you find?

I challenge you to find some "hidden" outlines.

I dare you to take a look around Wikipedia for hidden outlines (that is, outlines not yet hooked into the OOK), and add your kills to WP:WPOOK#The hunt for hidden outlines.

My trophies are already there.

May the hunt begin!

The Transhumanist 20:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality of arXiv screening

I just read your comment elsewhere about the professional screening of articles. Unfortunately it's not completely effective, with some pseudoscience getting through. [11] I only know these articles because the author spammed them here. I tried to read some of the mathematical papers, but the author uses idiosyncratic definitions without ever stating them, always using only vague hand-waving instead and referring to an earlier paper that is no more precise.

This kind of thing may occur because initially everybody with a university address could register automatically, and publications by these old users are not checked. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Registering is not the entire quality control system. There is also both endorsement and moderation, though, as you say, earlier standards were much less rigid. The current requirements are at http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement and http://arXiv.org/help/moderation. The endorsement standard that endorsers are supposed to verify is to "check that the paper is appropriate for the subject area. You should not endorse the author if the author is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the field, or if the work is entirely disconnected with current work in the area." Looking at dates of submission of the papers, i see that his first paper was submitted in its initial version in 1999, before the present endorsement system took place,as you say. Thus, Ironically, he now has sufficient papers in arXiv that he himself can endorse others. The moderation standard is "arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines. Material submitted to arXiv is expected to be of interest, relevance, and value to those disciplines. arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission." The moderators are "volunteers who have been approved by the discipline-level advisory committee and by the arXiv staff." DGG (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

I note your "Very Weak Keep" comment on the AfD for Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I recently added a somewhat lengthy discussion of the bases for my delete position, including my view on the criteria for inclusion of articles on proposed legislation (which as far as I know, is not specifically addressed in any policy or guideline). Based on your thoughtful input that I've seen elsewhere, I would like to have your views on it, regardless of whether it does or does not change your position. After writing it, I'm thinking of rewriting the basic ideas into an essay or guideline for consideration for inclusion in the Wikipedia namespace. TJRC (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

in process; there will be two parts a/the distinction between passed and failed and a little later b/what should be included, which ,to summarize , is every piece of legislation of significant public importance or where there has been significant public debate-- and every attempt noteworthy for legal or historic or social reasons. The very weak in my keep was because I am not convinced of the significance of this rather routine piece of posturing. DGG (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

the speed I just replied on the page is because I had already been thinking about this. DGG (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The International Association of Media and History

I gave it a bit more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Nova Publishers

I'm writing to you because you've contributed to the Nova Publishers article and written about them outside of WP. Do you know, is it a legit operation? The reason I ask is that I've discovered that they habitually plagiarize Wikipedia articles. They use the article intro both in the preface of the printed book and on their website as an "about this book" blurb. I collected a few examples on User:spiel496/plagiarism. I'd like yell and write letters, but if the company is just a bunch of photocopy machines in Elbonia, then why bother? Spiel496 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

they're legit, though there are some complications. Please email me. You do not have your email enabled. DGG (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's enabled (I hope). Spiel496 (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

="#449900">anshumanist   ]] 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations

I made some comments to keep two and delete the rest. Agreed? Bearian (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments re myself on several AfDs

Hi. I replied to one of your comments to me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Komandorski; and posted links to it on the other three. You seem to have missed my nom of:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Zilwicki

There is no 'plot' here, really. There certainly is a lot of popular culture that is 'worthy' and appropriate for significant coverage; i.e the notable stuff per the independent reliable sources:

• What's Opera, Doc?

Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

National Bank of Sudan

Are you the admin that released the National Bank of Sudan article? If so, the article was originally tagged as spam through the error of user Yourname. I changed it over to speedy deletion as a test page because a majority of the National Bank of Sudan article is a copy of Bank of Sudan article with minute changes. --Rent A Troop (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If they are the same bank, as appears to be the case from my searching now, then that's not a case for deletion, but of merging or redirection. JohnCD spotted it and did the merge. I missed it, and incorrectly assumed they were separate banks. If the name is a plausible search term, the thing to do is to simply change the article to a redirect--after determining which is the official name. Checking that, it does seem to be Bank of Sudan. While checking, I noticed an additional name that was used: Central Bank of Sudan, so I made it as a redirect. DGG (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Abdul Makim Khalisadar

Hi, I saw your earlier edit of Abdul Makim Khalisadar. Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Makim Khalisadar ? RomanLady (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC) (unfortunately deleted, though I think there was not really consensus to do so.) DGG (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

AndesEbla

Check out AndesEbla. I have no idea what's going on here. Looks like a text dump with at least 2 copyviolations... and maybe a COI? I have absolutely no idea what's happening here. -WarthogDemon 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm used to people thinking we're facebook; this is someone thinking we're Librarything. Deleted as no encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

deletion of material

I am very sorry, I was just rehearsing in MY Private Space, according to the rules. I did not violate any rights, since it was a list of careful selection of authors in several fields, books featuring them, composers, and directors. It was only raw material for assembling later a coherent article (I cannot write everything at once). It WAS NOT a dump but my personal culture and spirit. I will not say more, except that your rough, uncivil, aggression by your action and wording is a sign of unfathomable ignorance. Bye forever.--AndesEbla (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to give the best advice i could. I offered to restore the material. What more could i have done? What article were you intending to write? DGG (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

lists of unusual things DRV

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Said what I can there. I suggest dividing not alphabetically, but into specific types of "unusual"; article titles like those will always produce a negative reaction in many people. DGG (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

well-worded AfD.

Nicely said! tedder (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I might have said keep a year ago in order to establish the principle, but the principle is firmly enough established, that we can be a little flexible in interpreting it. DGG (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wish we could get WP:SCH to be policy. It would make things like this much easier to deal with. (I thought you'd already commented on that AfD- you haven't) tedder (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well said AfD

Put absolutely perfectly. Incidentally, if you haven't seen it in the morass of my talkpage I replied on the Oo7565 matter. I'm still not sure a ban would be the way to go – I suspect he'd come straight back under another name, and at least this way someone can keep an eye on him. On an unrelated matter, you might want to take a second look at AFD/Brindle family; I've still to find a single reliable source for this article, and every one of the "sources" provided in the AFD is the complete opposite of the article. (The article is about the family being a crime family; not a single source mentions any member of this family ever having been convicted of any crime.) – iridescent 17:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the connection between Alan16 and Oo7565? tedder (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

none that I know of--Iridescent was giving a single comment on 3 separate issues. DGG (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Central Park

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

~Zoe O'Connell~ (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy Family Academy

hi, thanks for the note. I was not the one that suggested a merge. I simply categorized it, cleaned it up a bit, added a few links, etc. I have no vested interest one way or another if it is merged or not! I will leave it to better minds than mine since I am not familiar with the school! Postcard Cathy (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Page retrieval of List of Master Grade Gundam models

Hi there. May I ask you to retrieve the above article, to be posted at the Gundam Wikia site. Thanks. E Wing (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Now at User:E Wing/List of Master Grade Gundam models DGG (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just saved a copy of it. You may delete it now. E Wing (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Dumb Question

How do I "join" a project? Like, schools, or alternative education, etc.? I just read the homeschooling page, and saw comments about inviting and recruiting, but no reference to "inviting" onesself. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You go to the page for the project, edit it, and add your name where it says list of members, with the ~~~~ , making whatever comment you like. You can optionally edit your user talk pageto include the userbox: {{User:Diligent Terrier/Userboxes/WikiProject Homeschooling}} or {{User:Burner0718/Userboxes/WikiProject Homeschooling}} DGG (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at William Timmins (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

not much I can say, as i usually avoid American political articles--enough other people already work on them. But I'll take a look. DGG (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Vehicle

I prod ed this again because several months,if not a year, after requesting an RS for a definition, nothing satisfactory has been found. therefore the lede is an unverifiable fantasy . So if we don't even know what the article is about it can become a meaningless bunch of twaddle. Which it is . What do you propose as a next step ? AfD?Greglocock (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose you improve the article. It's your job as much as anyone else's. The lede paragraph does not usually need to be sourced specifically, if it it just summarizes the rest and the rest is sourced, as it seems to be. Given the EPA link as the first external source, there would seem to be as much additional material as one could possibly hope for. DGG (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen L. Robinson

The article was just re-created, so I deleted per G4, of course. You said "primary in May" ... do you know when in May? I'm inclined to salt until the primary, given the general attitude of the voters at the AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

May 19, according to the deleted article. I'd be inclined to wait till it happens again. DGG (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on RS queery

Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re

I replied to your comment at WT:DERM:REF. Thanks again for your help. ---kilbad (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice/clarification

Hey there, David. You weighed in on Women Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame earlier this month, but now another editor is suggesting its deletion. I'm still rather new here and unsure how to proceed. I was hoping you might offer your wisdom to the situation. Rytch303 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)rytch303

commented there. 06:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to the Oo saga

I've given as harsh a "final warning" as I ever give, and was seriously considering blocking, and will endorse an indefblock/ban if this behaviour continues. I hadn't realised just how bad this had become and for how long he'd been doing it; that list is just the marginal cases where a potential case could be made for deletion. – iridescent 23:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

now you;vedone that, I'll check the AfC s for more copyvio. DGG (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oo7565

If someone goes around prodding Millard Fillmore, Soap, Trout, HMS Dreadnought and The Battle of Bunker Hill, I would warn him or eventually support banning him for disruption, exhausting the patience, etc. But if he prods articles which appear to fail the relevenat notability criteria, which have no references, even after they have been tagged for lack of references or for appearing to fail the notability criteria for many months, I would not support brandishing the banhammer. Especially if a good proportion of the prodded article fail in AFD. There are unreferenced articles about youth sports players, bands, and musicians of little notability. What are some of the really inappropriate ones? Are the inappropriate ones he has Prodded as much as 1/4 of the total? I keep getting vague dire accounts of wrongdoing by Oo7565 without a specific list of egregious ones. Edison (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

look again, is all I can say. i agree he needs education, not a block, since he seems to have stopped; as you seem reluctant to help teach him, I shall. It's not hat he's deliberately picking improper articles to prod, which is vandalism. It's that he's picking articles indiscriminately, which is still disruptive. DGG (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Age of Enlightenment and others

In addition to that page, several times in the past you have reverted my edits to articles which you have never edited before. There does not be appear to be on-wiki communication regarding these articles/edits and I find it unlikely you have them watchlisted as you have never shown interest in them prior to reverting me. Do you review my contributions or do you receive directives off-wiki regarding my edits? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I move around very broadly. Take a look at my contributions to see what I have worked on today--it's a good day to look at, because it's even a little wider than usual. You may have noticed in fact I consider myself pretty much interested in literature & history, & my real period is the late 18th century. Has been ever since I read Diderot in high school.

While your're here, let me advise you against the repeated removal of well sourced material without consensus. I do take a look at people who I recall as having done that, on an occasional basis--lots of editors do this also. DGG (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The scope of your work is irrelevant. Given the many thousands of edits that occur here daily, it's virtually impossible that you just happened to stumble across an edit I made less than two hours after I made it, even if the article is related to your interests. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but it's difficult as this isn't the first time we have had this discussion. What specifically brought you to the Age of Enlightenment page to revert my edit? You hint that you happened to reviewing my contributions, but you do not explicitly state such. If you review my contributions periodically, how often and in what detail do you do so? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that good faith is lacking in a policy of "Trust, but Verify"? Bongomatic 04:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I just find it odd that he pops up in the way that he does, and I'd like to know if someone is standing over my shoulder. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

DGG's a good editor. Why does it matter if he looked through your edit history, or if he found it through the random page tool, or happened to see it in the RecentChanges list? tedder (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to have comprehended what I've said. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the key things I do here is check logs and contribution histories of people i think might be doing interesting things. There's no schedule. When I do, i look for things I think possibly problematic, or an article or situation that might interest me. When I see multiple reverts on an interesting article, of course I look at them. DGG (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see that you're wording your statements carefully. If you had never encountered me before, you wouldn't know if I was doing "interesting" things and you wouldn't know to check my contributions, correct? If similar edits were made by an account other than mine, do you think they would draw less attention from you? Does seeing "Doctorfluffy" in a history list raise your suspicion? I don't like feeling that my contributions are getting a sterner look from you simply because they're made by me, and that's exactly the way I feel. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles about medical terms and signs

I posted this over at the medicine portal, but did not get any responses. Therefore, I wanted to know what your thought were on the following?

First, when it comes to articles pertaining to medical terminology or signs, like those found in Category:Dermatologic terminology or Category:Dermatologic signs, which should be included in Wikipedia, and which in Wiktionary? Are there any policies or guidelines I can hang my hat on when suggesting an article to be moved to Wiktionary? Second, of the articles regarding medical terminology or signs that should be in Wikipedia, what should the article consist of? What should the sections be?

Thanks again for your help. ---kilbad (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost every noun in Wiktionary could also make an article in Wikipedia (with exceptions for synonyms, obsolete words, and the like). Look at medical reference books : A medical dictionary gives a brief definition and, usually, the etymology, all in one or two sentences. A medical encyclopedic textbook on the subject gives a discussion of the biological and clinical significance as well, in anywhere from a paragraph on up. Don't think of it as dermatological terminology--think of it as dermatological symptoms, or conditions, or procedures The word is explained in Wiktionary, the thing itself is explained, in context, in Wikipedia. In some cases, where the sign is relatively trivial , and there is very little to say, the encyclopedic content can be included in a more general article. Any current problems here? Picking a potential one, the Fitzpatrick scale, you need to expand the article by giving a/ Its physiological rationale--I know it seems obvious, in a sense, but you still have to say it. b/a reference showing that it is the standard measure or one of them & if there are others, the differences and where they are used., and c/ something about the man. If possible, it helps to write a whole separate article on him if you have information & if he did anything beyond this one measure. You also need to link everything appropriate in the article: the term we use, is "build the web" . d/ It's the custom in many medical texts to give abbreviated references--do not do so here. give the full name as given on the paper, the full article title, in quotes, and the full journal title, in italics, and not just vol. and starting page, but issue and inclusive pagination. Anything since the 50s will be in PubMed--give their number as well. If the article is online, give the link or the doi., Additionally: Comedo is a disambiguation page and needs to be set up as such. Write the article for whitehead. Burrow: you need to actually explain that its due to the tunneling of the exoparasite, and give small picture. There is no need to give large pictures, or aim for effect, just identification. DGG (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for your quick and full reply. ---kilbad (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some question about your change of PROD guideline to 7 days.

I personally felt it reasonable, but I have gotten a bit of a complaint of my talk page and there is a bit of one on the PROD talk page as well. Thus, you may want to address those concerns ASAP. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to PROD

I just wanted to leave you a note to let you know that I've undone your changes to the page, as there was no consensus for it. I hope we can continue discussion on the talk page before making changes. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope at least you changed the other templates also. Seemed really really obvious to me. I have probably said all I'm going to say . I think I'll move on to proposing 7 d for deletion review. DGG (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which templates? I did change WP:Deletion policy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

to facilitate things, I reverted them myself. They're Template:PrSpam ‎ Template:Dated transwiki ‎ Template:Dated prod ‎, I'll let you change them back if the decision goes my way--the quick way of finding them is my contribution list. DGG (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Beta Alpha

Library or something society. Thought it might be up your alley so to speak. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

this one is a problem--it's not the main group, but one limited to the very small number of undergraduate only librarianship programs, with one active chapter only. This makes it of historical importance only, & I need to check the sources to see it it was significant in he past. The main group is Beta phi mu, which does have an article. DGG (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Boylestad

I saw your recent comment at the user's talk page. I don't know what "principles" Wikipedia is trying to uphold here by not allowing deletion. The arguments advanced in favor of Boylestad's notability advanced at the AFD were of the form-without-function type. Formal wp:prof-type criteria establishing "notability" should not be used a trump card to force retention of an article when it is not possible, functionally, to write an actual encyclopedia article. With zero substantial, independent sources about Boylestad, there can be no real encyclopedia article about him. But moreover in this case the subject requested deletion. That should end the argument right there. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally people request deletion if they don't like the article, or can't get it to read the way they want. The result will be that for bio, Wikipedia will contain the most famous people, and only others if the articles are tailor made to their specifications, and praise them enough. Subjects of articles have repeatedly asked for essentially that, though they don't quite phrase it that way. At that point, nobody could trust the completeness and accuracy of what we say, the distrust will extend to other subjects also, and we've become a irresponsible and worthless reference. We have enough problems maintaining quality even with a firm rule about NPOV. Requests such as this sometimes happens with academics after someone questions their importance in a discussion--they understandably don't like the often ill-informed criticism, and want to conceal the entire thing, article and all. But nobody can publish under their own name and expect privacy about their work, before or after the advent of the internet. What we do hold to is DONOHARM--we will not include someone marginal if the material is minor incidents to their discredit, or include an article at all if such is the only material and not very widely publicized already or about a public figure. I consider this a very narrow exception, and we need to watch that it does not spread. Our own reputation is based on our objectivity. I don't consider his notability borderline--he wrote several leading textbooks in his subject, and therefore clearly meets the relevant standard. That they're important is proven by the publication records, and the TES article. And for good measure this is the internet, and complaints will be permanently findable also. We have a formal private system for this, and I additionally offered private discussion on his talk page, but you've chosen to do this instead. If you want to help him, it's not the way. (Yes, we do have provisions for permanently removing actual libel and truly private information wherever it appears on Wikipedia, and I use them when appropriate; this is nowhere near the level.) But it isn't up to me personally. I gave my opinion--the community decides. So far it has decided not to accede to such requests. I hope it will always maintain that position. DGG (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • I brought my concerns here because you are an influential admin and I hoped to sway your viewpoint on the issue of BLP's in general, not just Boylestad's. The community to some extent follows your views.

      I am sorry that, substantively, you haven't addressed my argument at all, merely repeating that he's "notable" because he satisfies some formal criterion relating to his publication record. If you like, you may want to read my earlier comment again and respond to the actual concerns that I raised--they were about sources or the lack thereof, and using "notability" as a trump card to keep an article even when no sources are available to write an actual encyclopedia article. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I only wish the community did follow my views! But I try to differentiate here between my advice, which is based on the position and explanation that is accepted by the community, and my opinions about what the policies ought to be. As for standards of notability for him, there's no difference WP:PROF as a special case of biographical articles is firmly accepted by the community, and I agree with it also (as would only be expected since I helped get it to its current wording). As for BLP and requests by subjects of articles, the community opinion is that it can sometimes optionally be taken into account, but need not be. The position that it must be followed is clearly not accepted. The position that it should never be given any special weight is my own view, which is stronger than what the community accepts. As long as we avoid libel and true invasion of privacy, I consider NPOV as always more important, and I wish the community would agree completely. I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but personal feelings are secondary. DGG (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deandre Brunston AfD

I was wondering if you could clarify your post on the discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Deandre Brunston. The current "discussion" seems to be mostly people with differences of opinion "talking past" each other. I think it would be helpful to read the whole discussion and clarify exactly how/where we disagree so we can actually reach a consensus. This AfD seems to be headed down the "no consensus" path right now, which I always like to avoid! Thanks! Cazort (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

commented there. The proper level of inclusion for material of this sort is a matter of judgment. . DGG (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

empower Technologies

Hi DGG,

I just realized that the article I have created was deleted. The name of my article is Empower Technologies. The reason is G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.empowertechnologies.com/downloads/Empower_corp_bro_0902.pdf. I am actually the owner of the text in the "Empower_corp_bro_0902.pdf". I am willing to allow Wikipedia to use the text and don't mind people editing it. Is there any way you can restore the article please?

Thanks, Luikk (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

please see our FAQ about businesses, other organisations, and articles like this. You may license it according to the formalities there, but I do not see that you should do so, because the material is presently not really usable as an encyclopedia article, as is almost always the case for material primarily intended for publicity. The material needs to be written from scratch as an encyclopedia article. The company also needs to be shown as notable ,according to WP:ORG . this essentially requires multiple references providing substantial coverage from third party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Independent published product reviews do nicely. Routine listings of your partnerships or stock sales do not. I doubt the award for a media chair will be considered significant, however nice it may be. Given that the company seems not to be traded on any major exchange and has a capitalization of about $20 million, and that your latest financial statement says " The continuing operations of the Company are dependent upon its ability to continue to raise adequate financing and to commence profitable operations in the future. " (from http://www.empowertechnologies.com/pdf/finance/Empower_2008_Q3_MD&A.pdf ), I am not the least sure that you will be able to show this. But if you write a sourced article, the community will judge. DGG (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Janie Quinn

Hi DGG, I am relative new to WP and would appreciate your help. I know a famous person, Janie Quinn who has revolutionized modern milling by developing the first commercial line of sprouted flour, among other things. I received permission to create a living person wiki page where I sourced all the information I could find about her. I just was in here checking only to find that her page had been deleted by you. Would you please be so kind as to give me some direction on how I make this page acceptable? Thank you. Jaaq (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The article can be restored easily enough, & I have done so, but I do not think it will last in its present form. It was deleted only via the WP:PROD mechanism, where someone proposes a possible deletion & if nobody objects & the deletion makes sense to an administrator, it gets deleted. Such deletions can be stopped at any time before the 5 or 7 day period if even the author objects, and can usually be automatically restored afterward. However, if the deletion is stopped, or the article restored, it can still be nominated for the regular deletion process, WP:AFD, where there will be a community discussion of it, and the consensus of those at the discussion decides. There are 2 problems: it is not clear she is important, and also the article is promotional. what is meant is explained in our FAQ about businesses, other organisations, and articles like this. (Which also talks about conflict of Interest). Basically, about importance, this needs to be shown by references providing substantial coverage from third party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. The references here are not from such sources--they need to be newspaper or magazine articles or the like about her. The lackawanna College page is usable, but it still is a little too much of a press release. Nothing else there is. Listings of the books on Amazon or reviews there don't count--they need to be published reviews. If you can find them in well known national publications and give the references, the article might possibly stand. Otherwise, based on my experience, I strongly doubt it. As for promotional language, the article must describe her career, which is not the same thing as praise her accomplishments. The language must be neutral and descriptive, like a reference book. I've trimmed it a little for the purpose. Either I or someone else will undoubtedly list the article for deletion in a few days, if you haven't added good references. There will be a notice on the article, giving a link for where to defend it. I advise you to add the material very quickly. If you cannot find them, the best course is to yourself ask for deletion, by placing a {{db-author}} tag at the top of the article. DGG (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solstice (film)

I can certainly understand your removing on the prod to Solstice (film), but I am entirely baffled as to why it was prodded in the first place.. Much less how someone could send it to AfD. I easily found dozens of news articles and reviews. I have "rescued" other articles that had far less and were more difficult to source. This one was so easy. Was WP:BEFORE even used? I invite you to take a look at my rescue. Any tweaks you think still needed? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

commented at the afd. DGG (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fasihi and User:Fasihi

I see you declined the speedy delete and then prod but I would like to ask how you see the article as being borderline? If you see User_talk:Fasihi#March_2009 it the WP:COI user was already told how to improve the article from not being delete. I do not see anything in the article that is a calm of notablitly. Just my thoughts. I also replied to your rash comment on my talk page. 16x9 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

. You have been blaming other editors for removing speedy tags, but "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. " Any editor. The next step when you disagree is AfD. DGG (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What about this topic? 16x9 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You still don't understand. If you disagree with removal of a speedy tag, use AfD, not my talk page. But you might want to check WP:BEFORE first, and try to improve the article. DGG (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

okay well that is not what other editors and admins have said... "talk to the declining admin". 16x9 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

it wasn't I who declined the speedy, but another user. I just removed it when you erroneously put it back. Any user can decline a speedy, except the creator. Unless that user is being disruptive, it's not my concern why he removed it. But if you would like a plausible rationale, it asserts being a long-standing company engaged in the production of a major product. It doesnt have to prove it to escape speedy. If any user except the author thinks it's plausible, it escapes speedy. it does have to prove it to pass AfD. If nothing better is found I will probably !vote to delete it when it goes there, but the author deserves a chance to find such things as product reviews in published sources. DGG (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same thing [12]? 16x9 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You still do not understand. If ANY editor in good standing except the author thinks the speedy tag should be removed, it defeats the speedy. I might not have chosen to remove the tag. But if anyone else does so, as long as it isn't the author, that removal holds no matter what I think of the article. Do not replace speedy tags when good-faith editors who are not the authors remove them, unless you discover copyvio. Anyone may do this, and you do not have the right to put it back, and neither does an admin, unless they judge the person removing it is themselves being disruptive. Had I not removed your reinserted tag, I would not have been doing what I am required to, which is to enforce the rules. We have a rule against doing what you did, though I assumed you didn't realize it. DGG (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I understand what you are saying about this edit [13] which I did not clearly at the time understand was bad, I would not call it vandalism btw. BUT now I am talking about the article Fasihi which you did decline (which you have the right to) and I DID NOT re-add ... I am just wondering why. I do not disagree with your prod I was just wondering. 16x9 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional trios

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional trios

Since you commented on the talk page (after removing the PROD), I thought you should know that it's now been nominated. - jc37 02:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. What's wrong with having 6? DGG (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that even the six examples make this a good list.

Though I suppose that they could make good examples for an article about the character dynamics of three characters in a narrative, or an article on story and narrative, and/or character choice and design, etc., I don't think that this makes a good stand alone list, and instead, think that this seems really rather arbitrary, and the mess that co-existed with the 6 would seem to illustrate the problem of inherent rampant WP:OR. - jc37 12:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Miller (chairman)

FYI, since you were in the closed AfD two months ago. Ikip (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

apparently nominated on the basis of an unref tag being present, though the references were there nonetheless--the ed. who added them forgot to remove the unref. tag. DGG (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ninio

and then we all need to learn to speak heffalump, too, right? Uh oh, guess I better start practicing :) Thanks for a good laugh StarM 01:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Yourname

I have posted an update regarding this user here. Sometimes I wonder if we are too soft on the subtle trolls. Chillum 02:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

well, I'm at least glad he moved on from focusing on me along his way out. Thanks. DGG (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

good call, Chillum. I still think he's a sock, I just didn't know which drawer to shove him in. I'm sure he'll be back in some form. The poor typing is a giveaway, as well as the bad speedies, I just can't remember whose. We need a searchable sock database. StarM 03:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can develop a database schema that can handle all of that(ie exactly what we would track), I can provide the database and build a simple interface. Chillum 03:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

for one part, the material needed is the comments on people's talk pages and edit summaries. Is there any way to harvest these? Edit summaries alone would be very interesting. for another, all speedy nominations. Similarly, since they are on deleted articles. DGG (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, had no idea such thing was even technically possible. I was half in jest, but I'm going to think back on it and go through some notes I've kept. Totally agree, David, re: edit summaries. Should be able to get them through known possibly trolls/socks (I find the two so often intertwined) but I'm not sure how ti track the total universe without it becoming unmanageable. StarM 12:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This should go the the village Pump or Admin Noticeboard, because doing it would require use of admin powers if it were retrospective to get those from the deleted articles, and even if from this day forward, the decision to have a public record of the summaries from edits to deleted articles . But, Chillum, I'd first like some reassurance that it would be practical to harvest the data automatically. DGG (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

He's quacking. What is this? 3rd IP. Wonder why he decided to remember me as a target? I haven't dealt much with him since the initial interactions. Trolls ought to be burnt at the stake StarM 03:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

typos 'r' us

It's the fifth grade spelling bee champ of P.S. 95 in me. Cheers! Tvoz/talk 05:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins Bologna Center

Hi DGG, I saw your comment on the talk page of the Bologna Center. I have to say that I do agree with you on the promotional aspect of the article. However, I still disagree on the independence of the institution, it is part of the SAIS MA program with Washington DC but it is also part of other degree programs and administers and awards its own degrees which are entirely separate from SAIS in Washington. If it is ok with you, I will attempt a more nutral rewrite of the article this evening. I think I should also stress that so far I have not made any contributions to the main body of the article. If the consensus then still tends towards a merge I will happily go along with it. Cesariano (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

try. But to say that anything that calls itself a center of a larger school is independent of the school does not make sense to me, and I doubt it will to anyone else. DGG (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now completed the rewrite,Hopefully this will clear up many of the copyright issues and problems with promotional language. Being new to Wikipedia there are a few formatting problems. As I said on the talk page, normally I would not have directly edited the article due to COI, because of this I have made a conscious effort to keep as neutral a tone as possible and be very cautious in my editing.

I say that it is an independent institution because although it is an integral part of the SAIS MA program, It also runs its own programs, awards its own degrees and participates in joint degrees with other institutions. It also is financed separately and has its a director and resident faculty. I understand that this is not obvious, and it is an idiosyncratic institution, it is perhaps separate but inseparable from SAIS DC.

I look forward very much to your thoughts. Cesariano (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It needed a good deal more promotional and wordy language removed, which I and another ed. have done. Now find the exact reference from Foreign Policy. DGG (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Assurant Employee Benefits

See the bottom of the linked page and the para in the article starting "Assurant Employee Benefits is part of Assurant...". The timeline was also a copyvio before it was worked around, this is a copyvio; I'm assuming (with the language) that the intro is too. Ironholds (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

find the source, or take it to copyright problems. It cannot be deleted by speedy unless it is positively known to be a copyvio, with no significant non-copyvio text . Simplest thing would be to rewrite it as a stub, DGG (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Broda Otto Barnes

You previously opined to keep the Broda Otto Barnes article in its AfD. Now it's again at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broda Otto Barnes. Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sydney Rae White

I assume at the DRV that you're suggesting the availability of sources to establish notability. That being the case, can we just userfy the content to add the sources, close the DRV and move it back when it's cleaned up to prevent further efforts at deletion. I'm only meant to go by what's in the discussion, as you know, so new sources seem to indicate this as a reasonable option. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnes

Oops sorry, I think I hide some of the publications you added to Barnes temporarily. Just unhide, I was hiding them until they were formatted to remove the CAPS in them, so that the article format looks better for the AFD. It looks like Mastcell removed all the references just before he nominated the AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

no problem, I was of course in the process of formatting them. DGG (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Now they look perfect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at COMPFUNK2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hakan Yalincak

Thanks. You beat me to the punch. Yeesh, what a mess. Gut reaction is to go ahead and delete it, but it's long standing. Dlohcierekim 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a clean version to revert to? I'm counting SPA's. Maybe just revert and leave protected? Or go ahead to AN/I? Dlohcierekim 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yourname

for our shit-obsessed buddy. Suggest User_talk:Chillum#Yourname for centralized discussion StarM 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

if you like, but i think among us we can cut them all off. the only point would be if you think he's doing the like elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already been closed. We were up to six that I knew of and sick of whack-a-mole, but then again I don't understand the new SPI process. StarM 01:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

there can always be more. The thing is, there's nothing it can do, except on the off-chance it turns out to be a troll well known from before. The only practical approach is range blocks, but if he's using widely different ip addresses that's hopeless too. There are 2 schools of thought about what to do next: semiprotect all the targets, or leave them open so that he shows up and the a/c can be blocked--if he trolled elsewhere, it might not readily be found. The amount of this you see will go up sharply with increased time & activity as an admin. DGG (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

True. Can't believe it's been almost a year. Granted some admins do more in a day/week than I've done in eleven months. I think Chillum is the only one sprotected now - which is why he's hit I'm Spartacus and me now - amusing since absent our first interaction with him, he hadn't trolled me. I'd love to know what pleasure they get from this, I really would. StarM 02:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

don't you remember elementary school? Discovering the potential of doing stupid things... DGG (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am in the camp of semi-protection with an expiry. These people get bored a few days after you take away their playground. Chillum 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I think they hunt new playgrounds. Would love to know his obsession with shit and why it's just.. I guess I don't get the fun of trolling. StarM 02:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

DRV for Category:Knuckleball pitchers

The close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17#Category:Knuckleball pitchers, in which you participated, is now under discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 April 28#Category:Knuckleball pitchers. Alansohn (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

page deletion offer

Thanks for this, but there is nothing there I would wish to hide, I was seeking to make clear my interest in certain topics, but got the feeling that some people felt it was an assertion of experience, expertise and superiority. When I have time I will be constructing for the academic I asked about, and will be sure to approach you if I have any enquiries, as I have not created a biography before. Do you know if there are any software tools for creating/editing/testing Wikipedia entries on a local PC running debian/ubuntu linux, that can then be uploaded into the user area for final editing and testing before loading into the active page? Mish (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

only if you want to install the full MediaWiki installation, which is available for your platform, but that seems disproportionate work. An alternative is to build the site on some other wiki. If you work in the user area,here, nobody will disturb you. I remind you to see our FAQ about writing for organisations, and for other people. DGG (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Errol Sawyer Article slaughtered without reasoning

FleetFlame wanted to help me with puting the article back in the main space but I cannot find it anymore. I did not save it yet, how stupid! What can I do? 1027E (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Dear David, thank you very much for saving the article after deletion and restoring my trust in Wikipedia again. Maybe you can take a last look at it before I do another attempt? 1027E (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain me how I can move the article from my user page to Wikipedia?1027E (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be at Errol Sawyer.DGG (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear David, sorry to bother you again but I read in the discussion page that the article is being evaluated by a board of administrators. How long is this going to take? It still does not come up in my Google search.1027E (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Dear David,
Editor Fleetflame wants to put Errol Stanley Sawyer (birth name of Errol Sawyer and Errol Francis Saywer after baptisation) in the main title and I think that is not right as Errol Sawyer is always known as Errol Sawyer as an artist. This is information is not too important and belongs in chapter Early life. We would like to learn your opinion. Thank you1027E (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The name he usually goes by is used as the article name, but the full name must be used in the first paragraph. DGG (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear David,
Mbineri is back on the block and he slaughtered the whole article without reasoning. I need help from you and from an editing board. I wrote him already the following message on his talk page: I don't agree with your editing. I will undo it and I will ask help from DGG and from an editing board.
You have bad intentions because of the history with Christie Brinkley and you are looking for revanche. 1. The first paid job makes you a professional. 2. You change the structure and chronological sequence of the text without reasoning and you destroy it this way. 3. Errol Sawyer does not cite other photographers. You are insulting him on purpose. He says that he is influenced by them in the beginning of his career. 4. The fact that Errol Sawyer photographed Beauford Delaney, Patty d'Arbanville, Jessica Lange and Maria Schneider is very important to mention. You should not take that out. 5. You take out important quotations and references without motivation or logic reasoning. It is important to mention that Schomburg Library of Black Culture has not digitized their archives yet. 6. On purpose we will leave the link form Christie Brinkley to Errol Sawyer out because Christie attracks very strange visitors to her site that have nothing to do with Errol Sawyer as an artist. 7. The notability of an artist depends of the amount of pictures that are bought by important collectors such as Eric Franck and Manfred Heiting and Museums such as MFAH, Schomburg Library of Black Culture and La Bibliotheque Nationale. I will past my comment in DGG's talk page too.1027E (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I will take one look today. Please post here only a request for me to look, there's no need for more. DGG (talk) 18:37, 29

April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, we really need the PF article reference back too because he took out a lot of text coming from it. I scanned the whole article. It does exist but you have to be patient because their server is slow.1027E (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Kelby Shults alleged harrasment incident

Hi, thought you may be interested - an article you deleted as a PROD has been restored, and is now at AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelby Shults alleged harrasment incident.

thanks. I should have specified i was deleting it under BLP in the first place. DGG (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have

enabled my email, and look forward to reading your remarks.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Our troll needs a new home, this is ridiculous!

and am I really to understand there is *nothing* we can do? StarM 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

yes. i remind you we ask admin candidates how they respond to abuse. You want to take on his IP provider, if you can find them, it's a sure way to get even angrier. DGG (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no can do. He's proxy hopping, which is why the checkuser is useless. So he's either a network of 16 people - I doubt it given his focused obsession -- or he's proxy hopping. I'm just amused at how well focused he is considering relative lack of interaction after his first block. I'm surprised it's gone so long. StarM 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

double-monarchy

Hello DDG.Thanks for your help and reply on my page and thanks for fixing it up.Thank you Again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not fixed yet. First, The Double-Monarchy of England and France still needs to have specific statement ascribed to their sources, and material taken from other sources, even Public Domain ones like the old EB, quoted exactly. DGG (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Deletion Squadron

Hey there! You might be interested in this new venture! The fightback starts here! Yeah! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

good joke intrinsically, but it is well known that deletionists have no sense of humor. DGG (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm . . . I would not put deletionists at the top of Category:Humor-challenged Wikipedians. Bongomatic 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

well. a good sense of humor tends to correlate with tolerance for other people's ideas DGG (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but "deletionism" != intolerance for other people's ideas any more so than any other Wiki(pr)ism. --EEMIV (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't agree—lots of the funnier people I have come across (but not necessary those with compatible world view) —both personally and in the commercial being-funny business—are not tolerant. What is required to be funny is the ability to identify differences (and to point them out ironically), not to agree or accept alternate viewpoints.

Furthermore, I strongly agree with EEMIV's point that deletionism does not imply intolerance for ideas. Tolerance is openness to other positions, not agreemwnt with them—dissent is not inconsistent with tolerance. The notion that a viewpoint on what should be included in this encyclopedia is somehow demonstrative of intolerance of other viewpoints strikes me as bizarre. It is equally (in)valid to argue that inclusionists are intolerant of the views of others who argue for more stringent standards as to what is appropriate for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Bongomatic 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

to avoid misunderstanding, I consider all remarks of mine in this section in the category of WP humor, and would not intend them to be taken in their literal significance DGG (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

List_of_deaths_related_to_Russian_apartment_bombings

Hi DGG, I would like to ask you as an expert on AfD issues. This closing/deletion was done by a non-administrator, whereas the result was clearly "no consensus" or "keep" Same thing is here. Please note that this second deleted/redirected sub-article has now a practically zero content overlap with parent article, Russian apartment bombings - you can easily check this yourself. Do you think this deserves an AfD review, or this is simply an unruly action by a non-administrator? Thank you for advice.Biophys (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It was not a good idea. The obvious course is to merge the three. I have asked the closer to revert, & if not , I will do so. DGG (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I personally do not care if this content exists as a separate article or merged (the merging should be probably discussed separately). But these are factual and well sourced materials, so they should be present somewhere. If you look at main article history and talk page, you will see the problem [14]. It would help if someone uninvolved could help to mediate the issue. Could you recommend someone? One experienced person I know is Durova, but she is probably busy. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I remember that this article has bee actually closed as "no consensus". Right now there is no a trace of that. It looks like someone deleted AfD edit history.Biophys (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

City News Service

Hi DGG.

Any thoughts on what can be done to demonstrate the notability of City News Service? It appears (based on citations) to be a significant news outlet for the second largest US metropolitan region, and a top-20 region worldwide. It claims to be the largest regional one in the US. But (as you noted before about media generally), sources about it are hard to come by. Thoughts? CoM, if you're watching here, since you have an LA focus, any thoughts?

Thanks, Bongomatic 06:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

First describe them a little more fully, with respect to their various news services and feeds. Second, give actual examples of the media outlets that use them: odd that they don't provide a list of them. (market share is relevant for companies) Third, look for discussions of them in the trade literature. You could even write and ask them if they've been covered by any of the journalism magazines. Fourth, try the business aspects. They're a corporation, so there must be some published financials if they're publicly held. DGG (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. May do some of that. In the meantime, I managed to dig up some juicy (if old) stuff. Pretty sure they're not publicly held. Bongomatic 08:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources

If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advise or contribute. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Contribute new ones I can not, but I suggest that you need an explanation of why you consider each source reliable. possible a sentence or two for each, especially the ones without articles, or perhaps even on the talk p. I made a change to give direct access for the first two as an example. . Revert if you don't like them. I know it violates the usual rule for external links, but this is a special case--the point of a p. like this is to be convenient & it probably won't be in mainspace. . Where are you thinking of putting it, and under what title: I suggest: "Reliable sources for horror films" in WT space, and then I and others could do some similar and then we could have a list -- and of course a category. DGG (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I do much appreciate your looking in. I have just given the page a few more tweaks to gently address ongoing mis-interpretations of WP:RS and WP:NF by well-meaning editors. Or maybe I am simply too liberal (chuckle), but guideline IS guideline. I like your suggested title, as my own is simply a descriptive of the work-in-process. I decided to "source" back to the relevent page of each various site's pages that explains their rationale, editing practices, and editorial staff... rather than having a linkfarm... in order to allow editors wondering about their sources to have a direct link to the page. And pardon my innocence, but what is "WT Space"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

at the simple end, I meant WP space -- the pages where guidelines are put as in WP:N. WT was a typo, it does exist, as a functional abbreviation for the WP space talk pages--the abbreviation for the talk page of WP:N, is WT:N. Next, the reference to articles would do for the ones that have articles. At least a word or two must be said about the others, or else you're just asserting they're ok on your say-so. And for the ones that have articles, the articles must indicate why they're not only notable, but reliable sources. My view is that it still helps to have a guide of some sort on the proposed page, not just a listing. DGG (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just got in from a shoot. Will do as advised and give a brief description of each (not already with wiki articles) and then use the current refs to cite the description and assertion of RS. I want the reader to be able to follow the refs to the same information I have found. And if I find other sources, I will add them as well. Any suggestions for my preliminary sections describing why the article exists? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That's tricker, because this should be crafted as a precedent. Tomorrow. (Question: might be be well to discuss some places that are not good sources?) DGG (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)