User talk:DGG/Archive 61 Feb. 2012

                                       ARCHIVES

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

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

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

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

 

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

Abdel-Hady Soliman

me again ;-) You cleaned up some of the copyvio and if you think he's notable, I'm trying to turn it into an article and not his CV. Can you see my note on the talk about the name? Thanks! StarM 03:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

notable as author--there's a long list of papers in the original which probably also serve for WP:PROF, but which I haven't checked. The standard for researchers under WP:PROF is the world-wide standard; the standard for Authors is that of where they publish, (& for administrators, that of their country). The exception that WP:PROF is world-wide for notability was accepted by some negotiation a few years ago on the basis that science, unlike publishing or administering, is international.) You were right about the name--I assumed, what with the full caps, it was repetition in front of a listing to alphabetize, but itis accepted that way. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, I'm not debating that he's notable. It's just currently inaccessible to people not in his field. I did a little to clean it up and improve the English. Not sure at all on MOS for publications but I'll let someone else tackle that part. Just trying to find some info about him to flesh out the article to explain it beyond: he studied, he published, he teaches. We'll figure it out. He should give his students that job :-) Thanks again StarM 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Science Museum (London) move request

Hallo David, I noticed that you had opposed and reverted a previous move of this title {{db-move}} of Science Museum to make way for a move of this title to Science Museum, but I have now proposed it as a WP:RM. You might like to have a look at the discussion there. PamD 15:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philosophy and religion in Star Wars

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Philosophy and religion in Star Wars. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your tag

Could you revisit PVN_Acharya? You tagged it for copypaste, but didn't say why you thought that was necessary. Is there a source out there that isn't a reverse copyvio? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

good catch. See my comments there. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PVN Acharya

Hi,

You noted that you are considerably puzzled by the accuracy of what I wrote on my late father. Besides the citations, which have always been there, what evidence would you like to see? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaghuVAcharya (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

see your user talk, but I already said on the article talk. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PVN Acharya

I'm afraid that you made it personal by suggesting that I delete my late father's article in order to avoid "embarrassing myself." I found your tone to be extremely condescending.

"Don't Bite the newbies.."

Further, there may have been theoretical articles on DNA Damage back in the fifties, but my father empiracally linked "Irreparable DNA Damage" to pre-mature aging and cancer, caused by Low Dose Ionizing radiation and environmental pollutants. Thank you and I am moving on. (RaghuVAcharya (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but it is very difficult to explain why without it inevitably sounding a little on the sharp side--indeed, that's one of the reasons why it's not a good idea to write on oneself, one 's relative, or anything in which one has very close personal involvement. I answer further on your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Courtesy Notification

As a courtesy notification for your consideration, your name has been referenced by me in a recent post to User:Atama. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for electing to contribute your observations to the article talk page. I intend to fashion a rather in depth and carefully considered response to your observations as I believe it will be productive. However, due to time limitations and a personal desire to step back from this issue for a break and some reflective consideration, I may not post my response before the blackout. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI and consideration, I have replied to your observations posted to one of the "Swiftboating" RfCs. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Obar

Dear DGG,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you. Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

of course I am willing to do it, and you may use my wikiname and my real name however you please, though if others are not giving their name likewise, I am sure you will do so in such a way as not to give my comments any greater implied emphasis. I should like to speak with you first about your project in general, and will email you. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A small concern

Thank you for taking the time to stub Galatas Palace as opposed to outright G12 deletion. I am concerned however that you have added the "expand" template pointing to the Italian Wikipedia as a source for expansion as it appears to be a verbatim Italian translation of the copyvio you just removed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

actually, it's a close paraphrase, but you are right, & I shall remove it. One might as well take the information direct from the original source. It needs checking for additional. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the PV Narasimh Acharya subject

DGG:

You stated on my talk page "If your father did make the connection first, which I would need to check, he never published it outside of a conference abstract.."

Yes, it would have been advisable that you checked before you casted this long dark shadow of doubt over his research and reputation. It would be advisable not just in the case of my father but, for all of your Wiki exploits. As far as promotion is concerned, I see no problem that I would do this for him because he deserves some credit that he never received in his lifetime. Also, I maintain that he was "tapped" as it were (as I have been) so who knows how much went un credited to him.

As far as citations are concerned: I put his stuff on wikipedia years ago now, and a couple years prior to that, I had numerous conversations, via email and phone, with tenured scientists in this scientific area from the US, Canada and England. Two of these researchers actually apologized to me for not knowing about and not citing his 1971 article in Johns Hopkins. Furthermore, a former professor of mine at the Carlson School, U of M said stated "It happens...they (take an article and its ideas) slice and dice it so much to make it their own...it goes on." This sentiment was echoed by other researchers I have spoken with, or emailed.

I can tell you, when I spoke to these researchers, having sent them links or actual copies of articles, I would ask questions such as "was he wrong" and "was he actually on to something." So, as far as your comment "Nobody has perspective. Nobody." You are correct indeed...and please don't call me "Nobody." Take care and nice speaking with you. (RaghuVAcharya (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

the subject is closed. Your misunderstandings above speak for themselves, but for the record, Oral second-hand testimony is not used here, the Johns Hopkins conference paper was not a full publication, Nobody means "There is no person ", and is not a personal reference. And fwiw, you admit you are promoting him. See WP:MEMORIAL, Indeed, I see this posting as a continuing attempt at promotion. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The JH paper was presented at a Symposium in 1971 and published in 1972 and it is searchable on PUBMED. For what it's worth, he and and others like him are worth it. (RaghuVAcharya (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC))

Talk:Women in development#Requested move 2

It seems difficult to get closure on this question. Since you contributed to the discussion on the first move proposal, perhaps you have thoughts on the second proposal. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio & edit wars claim

Hi DGG, besides I beg your pardon for my faulty english.
My nickname is this one but due to a stalking serious problem I detailed here due to some italian IP "contributors" police suggested me not to go on editing any message using my nickname. In it:WP pages I got same nick and if you scroll down my history you could able to read the books I edited and/or offered my collaboration. After having compiled a 960 pages book, a complete detailed review 1905/1994 of local amateur championships, some italian members of FIGC running local regional committee noticed my work and asked for my help as historical consultant. My best result had ben a book edited in 2009 (1959/2009 F.I.G.C. Lega Nazionale Dilettanti 50 anni giocati bene = en: National Amateur League 50 years well played) in which I published several important historical documents.
When my WP collaboration got started I faced several copyvio: one book had been copied all football player stories and details while other just tables. For the tables my effort had been to justify all unverified sources (mostly edited books, some I've got at home others borrowed from at a friend of mine told to be the biggest italian collector maybe more than 1,500). In last 3 months a group of IPs started screwing the Italian Third Division copying from a series of books a friend of mine sold the editor all his fixtures collection (1909 / 1997). Even if the editors is told having bought the entire collection of microfilms of the most important italian sports daily news newspaper (told from co-editors who visited his company using his microfilm reader) he needed a well done complete work to entitle his reprints as right and well done (some copies of first series are containing some screwed tables I published on mine, copied from a young man told to be very keen in his reports I later discovered missing of judge's decisions). Last week I discovered that the group of italian screwers are behaving with user CapPixel (he's an italian man) in the same way they used to do with me: several edit wars because they feel themselves able to do anything, untouchable on it:WP and the same here untill CapPixel started reverting their screws.
Thwy screwed all it pages telling me excluded teams meed to be classified. My foult had been not linking immediately the F.I.G.C. page stating the rule where is told it's up to the Federation to decide if a sentenced excluded team can be or not saved from relegation if they're able to demonstrate occurring a special situation causing external problems they got involved in (those users are behaving as exception is the main rule, not the opposite). They are behaving so because they think right their conviction just because they read some badly screwed books copied on en:wikipedia but subject of copyvio.

The copyvio had been made from CapPixel who didn't copy our :it pages but the 2nd series of books, books I'm able to scan and demonstrate I'm right. The worse problem is about screwed tables content: the editor made some very bad errors. He didn't know each table didn't need to be sorted (en: tables got sorted by goal average (it:Quoziente-reti) (in italy goal average had been rarily used, just in 1925-26 and 1938 to 1941, italian users did'nt know that untill I told and demonstrated them) so that using a computer he put in order 1st team to last one including those which didn't complete the championships (or started it !!!) due to anticipated withdraw, reaching 4th fielding denial (sorry don't know the right term) and because judges sentenced their exclusion due to aggressions and so on. Main problem for me stands in the break of equity of a rule set in 1928 and still in use stating excluded teams must not be listed. That editor listed in those tables arbitrarily something not existing in official reports (there's a sports newspaper online to be checked) nor on all sports newspapers and as I reported in the it: claim might compromise all previous and further seasons as those group of rascals are doing now.
In order to complete this claim I need an email to send the scans. Looking forward in your help, believe me this is not a revenge: users have to know rules are existing and must be respected and a multimedial encyclopedia must be edited accordingly. Best regards. Sorry unable to save this message as IP.--Nipas (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a good person to help you with this, as I have little familiarity with this subject area, and only a very superficial knowledge of Italian. You say you were working with User: CapPixel, so I suggest you ask him for assistance. If there is one point more critical than the others, I suggest you limit yourself to it, at least as first. If for some reason you think you cannot work with him, ask for help, concisely, about the key issue, at the project, WT:FOOTY. The shorter you can make your comment, the more likely it is to be understood DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Women in development#Requested move 2

It seems difficult to get closure on this question. Since you contributed to the discussion on the first move proposal, perhaps you have thoughts on the second proposal. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Tatung Institute Tea Culture and Department of Business Management‎

Hi DGG. I noticed your comment that "I think this amounts to a notable higher technical institute." Just to be clear, Tatung Institute of Technology is the notable technical institute. Tatung Institute Tea Culture and Department of Business Management is a new, small department within the university. One of the references says that the department has only 10 students. Of course there is no inherited notability. If a university is notable, that does not mean that each department (could be 100s per university) should get its own article. Anyway, I will put this up as a non-speedy delete. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Redd Rockett's Pizza Port references

First of all, Redd Rockett's Pizza Port of Disneyland is a restaurant. It is not an attraction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickA.Tagle35 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

yes I recognized that. but if something is "hemed after a retro space port cafeteria" I don't see all that much difference. In any case, it still needs 3rd party sources for notability, which are not presently in the article. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Marking Speedy Deletion of International Institute for Trauma and Addiction Professionals

I am really quite shocked that you would mark this article for speedy deletion. This is a partner article to Certified Sex Addiction Therapist which has been edited and approved already by several Wikipedia editors. This article cites 17 references! Including Newsweek, the American Psychological Association, the National Board of Certified Counselors, and several newspaper articles. Only four of the citations refer to the official site or an associated site. The other 13 qualify as third party references. This is not a promotional article, it is written in an informative manner. The problem with this subject is that there is a lot of sub-standard information. This is THE organizing body that sets the standard for this field. As the references attest. Why don't you do some reading on the subject before casually deleting appropriate articles that meet Wiki standards! This must be referred to a greater decision-making process.TBliss (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I placed a speedy deletion tag on International Institute of Trauma and Addiction Professionals not for the failure to show importance, but for being written in an entirely promotional manner. It does indicate some importance--at least enough to pass speedy. I'm not that sure of actual notability, however. I am sure about promotionalism. I say that because I did read the article, and did look at the references--had I not closely examined the references, I might have taken them at face value. nother WPedian just removed the deletion tag, on the basis of it being a "legitimate standards body", which is true--but that didn't address the promotionalism.

A Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Of the references given, almost all of them are either blogs or general works on sex addiction, like ref 1 & 15 (which do not mention the Institute) , or directory listings like refs 5. 6, & 14 or mere mentions (like ref. 2, the Beast account --which you attributed to Newsweek-was it perhaps reprinted from there? --, which merely gives the institute as the affiliation of one of the people interviewed, or the Counseling Today article, which merely says it administers an examination.) I suspect the books to contain mere mentions also. The Behavioral Healthcare article is the only possible third party source significantly about the Association, and it is essentially a press release. So what third party has written substantially about the Institute?

A WP article also needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. The simplest way to avoid inadvertantly doing this is to avoid adjectives. Don't talk about the overall importance of the subject--talk about what they have accomplished--this is probably the main failing in the present article. Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia--not about sex addiction or the examination, but about the Institute.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.

I have a suggestion that will preserve the information: merge the two articles. I suggest merging under the name of the certification, because I think that's what people want information about. (That article too is promotional, in exactly the same fashion--and there's a good deal of duplicated content. Alternatively, acting as an editor, not an administrator, I will remove the promotional parts and irrelevant references from the present article. This takes more than routine rewriting, but I'm willing to do it, as I've worked a good deal with articles like this. If you do not like what I do, we can ask for a third opinion, but remember that you do not own the article. As a first suggestion. I'm tagging for the merge; if you agree, I will help you do it. The principle is better one strong article than 2 weaker ones. As the merge tag says, the place for further discussion is Talk:Certified Sex Addiction Therapist. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very kind offer you have made to the page creator. I have asked him to accept your intervention. --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:7 World Trade Center. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Campus Ambassador in New Haven

Dear David,

My name is Stefania and we med at the NY Wikipedia Day last month. I following up on our conversation about finding a Campus Ambassador for my Cognitive Psychology class at University of New Haven and, as we agreed, I contacted Maximilian Klein who is | trying to find an Ambassador in my area. However, there seems to be the possibility that nobody is available, in which case I would kindly ask you if you (or somebody from NY) could come to my class one day and give a short talk. I would really appreciate your help, and I hope your are still available.

Thanks for your time, I hope to hear from you soon.

Best, Stefania S.mereu (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

PVN Acharya

DGG:

Please heed you own advice:

Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors

Sorry to be blunt, but your comments are embarrasingly (to you) patronizing and you keep referring to "Irreversible" when it's "Irreparable." They may be one in the same to you but, I don't think you know all of the details of this area of science.

As far as his two books, please refer to the US Copyright website. My question to you is: what do you stand to gain by trolling about wikipedia and advocating the deletion of legitimate contributions by for example, a Indian Born HINDU scientist? We need to know what exactly you're intentions are. We're the ones getting tappped, btw.(RaghuVAcharya (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC))

OK, I'm referring this to a community decision at AfD in a day or two. I've commented again on your talk p., and I already did urge you not to make this personal DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Online Ambassador, Spring 2012

Hi, DGG! As you may know, the Wikipedia Education Program has instilled a new set of standards that courses must meet to officially join the program for the semester. As you can see, one of the requirements is that at least one ambassador or professor is a Wikipedian, as this should give students more access to helpful information about contributing to Wikipedia and creating good content. You are listed on the Online Ambassador page; are you still interested in remaining active this semester? Some of these classes will have to remove themselves from the program should they fail to meet these standards, but we would like to ensure that new students are receiving proper support during the editing process. Please let me know if you are still interested in mentoring these students this semester and/or visit the Online Ambassador talk page to select a course that still needs an Online Ambassador. Thank you! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Gouds

HI DGG, I noticed that you have just restored a lot of entries to List of Gouds in the belief that most of them have suitable refs in the linked articles. Are you sure about that? Could you perhaps give me a few examples? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

see my note on your user talk p. Anything to do with Indian caste articles needs discussion, not unilateral action. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. There is no note on my user talk page. Have you mixed me up with someone else? I spend hours sorting out these Indian "List of x caste" articles and cannot recall any respected contributor in that sphere querying any entry that I have removed. Obviously, IPs and the like sometimes do. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Worked out what has gone on. You dropped a note on the talk page of Pernoctator, who appears to have been proposing deletion of various lists. I have certainly emptied some in my time but I cannot recall ever asking for deletion. I would be surprised, but also pleased, if you do find any errors in my removals. - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies--I had seen you were doing some removals, and I was going to get around to sending you a note also. I do not have the sources or language knowledge to work on these further. The best way to proceed on this is to get consensus somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This does not seem right, sorry. Plenty of people involved in the India project know what has been happening. Also, you appear not to have seen, for example, Talk:List of Ror. I have not proposed these lists for deletion as there must surely be some valid content out there even if not among the names that were removed. However, we cannot have them populated with apparently unverifiable content, and certainly not when the people concerned are still alive. Caste is controversial and is a statement of ethnicity. Does this make sense? - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There was also this discussion at WT:INB recently, although specifically geared towards BLPs. - Sitush (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was aware of some controversy over this, but have not followed it in detail. But I see the extent of the problem. Let me think about it. The project talk p. makes evident another layer of complexity, which is whether it should be included in the article even if there is good sourcing. There are several incompatible positions. One is that this is as essential part of a person's background as the city and year they were born, and something nobody should rationally be ashamed of (unlike, say, a criminal conviction, which was the basic consideration present in adopting the BLP Policy of DO NO HARM.) The opposite is that in practice in India listing caste can still lead to discrimination, and therefore should be avoided unless self-affirmed, or unless the person is so famous that it is generally discussed, and the mention in Wikipedia can do no harm. This has previously come up elsewhere, principally though not exclusively over the use of my own ethnic category, Jewish. I have seen both views presented here, even though there is now almost nowhere any threat of persecution. Yet there has been within my own lifetime, and the anti-semites did use listings in encyclopedias and directories as one way to ferret out whom they wished to murder. And proud though I am of it and other aspects of my identity, I probably would want to hide it if it subjected me to danger. I suggest you get wider consensus than just the Project; it is very possible that you will have it. I always follow the consensus even when I disagree with it. (I did disagree with the consensus on the ethnic-occupation cross category guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality; and while I regret thedecision, I would not want to raise the issue

That's fine. Have a think, although I do not believe that there is any controversy at all if you exclude SPAs and drive-by IPs. In the interval, although I agree that the articles should not be deleted (and this is where I believe your recent involvement originated), I do hold the opinion that you should revert those reinstatements of content where they apply to articles concerning ethnic/caste origin. Those articles get out of control very quickly. We have a clear situation that we can re-revert to, ie: yours. And there is very clear evidence that where I have been involved there has been a more than reasonable degree of work before removal of the entries. It is up to you whether you bother or not, but if you do then you will see a lot of the individually linked articles had edits from me during the process of fixing the lists - I did more than a little background stuff. FWIW, regarding the Jewish issue, that is in fact one of the primary markers and it has been raised by numerous people in connection with this caste issue. Those people include face-to-face conversations at the last Wikimeet that I attended (worthless in itself because not written down, but most were experienced admins etc). WT:INB is a suitable venue for what is a complex and "localised" issue but if you decide that you would prefer to see it discussed at more general venue then that is fine by me. What I want to avoid for now is a situation where the cruft reappears, the BLP vios (my viewpoint) resurface, and yet more is added. Not many people patrol these things and the idea of having to start over is completely dis-spiriting. If the preceding sounds rude or whatever then I apologise as that is not my intent. I have had a rather bad day of non-consensus/socks/meats/legal threats/edit warring/blah-blah and will be shortly heading for slumberland! - Sitush (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, and as a complete aside, you mention that there is "now almost nowhere any threat of persecution" re: Jewish people. I suppose that depends upon the definition of "persecution" but, for example, in my bit of the UK the extent of anti-semite attacks etc is rising rapidly and was never what I would describe as "low" in the first place. It is well-documented and sometimes very distressing even to non-Jews such as myself, and it is clearly evidenced on the streets around where I live. I am not Jewish but this is the area of my birth and where I have lived for most of my life, so I know it well & have many Jewish friends etc right back to my childhood. I have also known plenty who were in the camps, although I am a child of the 60s. If this is how things prevail in Manchester then I dread to think how it is in more heated places. Similarly, I have neighbours who are of Pakistani Muslim and Indian Hindu origin, but share the same last name: you do not want to read how they react to each other. Suffice to say, the police are quite regular visitors. I should move house, but that will not fix the real problem; it will merely remove me from it to some degree or another. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

there have been attacks on synagogues this year in NYC. As you say, racism is endemic everywhere and the last few years of politics and economics has not discouraged it. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion here and this thread is referred to therein. I hope that this is acceptable to you. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Prods

Hi DGG, I am aware of the rules about Prod. Could you let me know which article you are referring to? I'm not aware that I have replaced a prod anytime recently, and certainly not deliberately. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Care to show me where the prod was contested? I don't see it in the article's edit history. You declined the speedy deletion proposal, but that's not the same as declining a Prod. As far as I am aware, the article has only been proded once. Sparthorse (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

you are perfectly correct.My apologies. Just treat it as a notice that I declined the prod. In practice, if I decline a speedy saying "it might even amount to notability", I'm rather likely to contest the prod also. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Infodynamics

Hi there, I have created more links and included more references to help in establishing the term. I have lectured on the topic at UCLA and agree with the content that is currently written on the page. Please let me know what you think. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.150.187 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Message is above

Your message is above. I do not know how to send you a message to your own page. Sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

ShropshireLad has still NOT removed any of his self-published e-book as references on any of the aforementioned articles. In addition, he did not remove his listing of his fictional book Spurious Brood from the Books Section he created. I did. Should I remove the references in the article or wait? Mugginsx (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Author advertising

Author Phil Revell, who admits (or claims) that he is User:Shropshire Lad and has engaged me on four articles and my talk page in which he did some completely self-serving editing. The articles are Richard More (Mayflower passenger), Katherine More, Jacob Blakeway, Samuel More. These articles are all inter-related in that they involved a scandal in England which eventually resulted in the four children of Katherine and Samuel (or as Samuel claimed) Jacob Blakeway being secretly put on the first Mayflower voyage and brought to America as indentured servants.

Mr. Revell has announced on the talk page of Katherine More http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More where he originally stated who he was and added advertising information about his book and his internet website. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katherine_More&diff=475632578&oldid=451678526 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katherine_More&diff=452205726&oldid=451678526 which I removed as Wiki Spam - On the Richard More article he cited in references in such a way that they went DIRECTLY to the page of his book He does not deny it and thinks it is not a violation since he claims he is the author (which makes no difference because legally Wikipedia has no legal contract with him to use his copyrighted page viewed on wiki. This Copyright violation, he refused to acknowledge since he is the author and states therefore that he cannot violate his own copyright. I tried to explain that we have no way to prove that ShrophsireLad is Phil Revell and even so, it is not permitted on Wikipedia. He states he read the guideline and does not agree.

I forgot to mention that although he blanked his talk page, he has previously identifed himself only as a teacher and then went on to change it to say he was an author. I will not bother you with the diffs and it is probably not that important. He also blanked his User page recently during this controversy.

His most recent answer to me is that he will do as he pleases and states I have cite no guidelines which I have at least four times.

Would you please enlighten him. He remarks are identical on the article talk pages - he cut and pasted them. So, too are my remarks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More but on my talk page I actually show him some of the diffs to prove to him something he denies, putting advertising on the talk page. Now that I have proven it, he maintains it is perfetly proper. Please look at one article talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More and then my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mugginsx bottom section to get full picture of his statement and intentions.

Thank you for any help you are willing to give. If you are too busy, I will thank you anyway and do my best to cope with him.

• first, one can give a reference link directly to the page of a book, if the book is a RS. That it is copyright protected is irrelevant. Even if it were paywalled, it's permissible. Links are not copyright violations, and this has been clear since the early days of the internet. (What is a copyright violation in linking is linking to someone else's page in such a way that it appears to be your own). We can also give an additional External Link section link to a copyright site, if it's a free site. There is as far as I can tell no violation of our copyright policy. The place to pursue it is the WP:Copyright questions noticeboard, but I do not see it as the point, unless he has done extensive quotation or Close paraphrase, in which case he would need to give a formal license.
• As for advertising his book, as an EL or otherwise. He can certainly give a sentence & his link on his talk p. Many of us link to our own work. What he cannot do by our EL policy, is add an EL to his own work to the article, as a fiction based on the person's bio--which would otherwise be suitable He can propose it on the talk p., and then someone else should add it , if supported by consensus. Giving it on the talk p. as a proposal for the article is not advertising, if not done excessively. Adding it without consensus to the article probably is. Adding it as much as he has been doing certainly is. The place to pursue this aspect of the issue is the WP:COIN, Conflict of interest noticeboard.

• But his book A spurious brood is fiction, and published as such and admitted to be such. He claims in the talk that it is based on fact, but that of course does not make it a RS. He says he has created a website and book, The Mayflower Children, giving the actual historical facts in support of the book. But that does not make it a RS either, as the book is self-published. Obviously neither the book nor the site can be used as a source for information. He seems to have used the book as a source, and that is not permitted. If he wishes to use it, he must list it on the talk p., and see if there will be consensus to add it. Myself, for a self-published book. I would want to see reliable reviews accepting the information as reliable. If consensus cannot be obtained, the place to discuss it further is the Reliable sources noticeboard. This is the most critical problem, & I will comment on it

Incidentally, please do not refer people complaining of actions here or needing a fuller explanation to Jimmy's talk page--it's an unfair burden, and best saved for major matters involving fundamental policy, where his opinion is desired. (which in any case is well-informed and very highly influential opinion, not a decisive settlement of an issue) . Refer them to the appropriate forum here. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I will do so and I apologize. I did inititally refer him to the copyright guidelines but he refused to acknowledge them stating since he was the copyright holder there could be no copyright violation. I know that not to be true from my past career in the law, though I did not state that.

He has also taking out a large chunck on my material in Jacob Blakeway article which he is entitled to do BUT he has put HIS references in place of those of the PhD who published them first. To me, Dr. Donald F. Harris (from which Revell got his information is just as good a reference but everytime he makes an edit, he replaces the existing reference with his. He also reinserted and continues to advertises his FICTIONAL BOOK with is a sexualized story about the affair and he admits has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article on all four article pages I have listed. Please see his latest edit history here just done as you can see by the time on the edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacob_Blakeway&diff=475783823&oldid=475627200 Mugginsx (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute re sources on Katherine More page

I am posting here regarding your intervention in the dispute between myself and another editor. I am concerned that you may have acted hastily and with too little information.

I am indeed the author of the ebook The Mayflower Children and the novel A Sourious Brood. I have not tried to hide this; my opening post on the Katherine More talk page made the authorship clear.

The factual book The Mayflower Children was published by my company Ascribe Publishing; this is because I am a professional writer & publisher. I am now retired, but until recently I was a well known UK journalist, as any google search under my name will reveal (Phil Revell - The Guardian). My company is listed in the UK (Company No. 07745023) and the books have valid ISBNs. I am currently going through the process of depositing a digital copy with the British library as required by UK law. The fictional book 'A Spurious Brood' meets all the requirements for professional publishing. Copies have been deposited with the three deposit libraries in the UK, as is required by UK law.

My previous books are showing on World Cat and my assumption is that the recent publication date of the two books in question explains their failure to show. The digital ebook was published on December 12th.

The books themselves draw heavily on research papers by Donald Harris PhD: published in ‘The Mayflower Descendant’, the magazine of the Massachusetts Society of Mayflower Descendants, Volume 43 July 1993 and Volume 44 January & July 1994. Donald also produced two pamphlets in the UK: but these were never formally published. Donald is now in this 80s and infirm, he passed his research to me with the intent that I would republish the material. I created this suite of pages on Wikipedia with that aim in mind. This is certainly not a commercial operation, as anyone giving a moment's thought to the likely market would agree. I have cooperated with the other editor to the extent that I allowed free use of a photograph used on the Richard More page. I became concerned when factual inaccuracies, (which can easily be verified by third party sources) were introduced onto the pages.

Your intervention is, I feel, too swift and too draconian. With the exception of today's edit I have made no article edits since December 30th. I am therefore at a loss to understand your reference to disruptive editing. What I have done is attempt to discuss the issues on the relevant talk pages, but isn't that what we are are supposed to do?

I do concede that citing one's own publication on a page created by oneself is open to accusations of advertising. But the work is not original research, and does not claim to be.

In any case my understanding is that the other user is happy to accept the source material. His objections seem to come from the fact that I am pointing out errors of style, fact and inference in his subsequent edits.

I know that Wikipedia administrators are busy people, and that a reply may not be immediate, so I will take no action until I receive your reply. Shropshire Lad (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is simply not true. Do you not know that every edit you make is maintained in your edit history? That includes talk pages, article pages and your own personal page. You insult someone's intelligence by making such claims. The first time you reverted me was today. That was after much talk on the talk pages. The other day you "linked" some names on one of the articles. That is all I see. You are talking to an administrator with a PhD. Don't make yourself look foolish with such statements. Mugginsx (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

first, some general matters: No administrator in at Wikipedia makes final decisions. The community makes final decisions, at the various venues. Admins make decisions based on assumptions about what the community will support in unambiguous cases. I can and do block to avoid further disruption from anyone who insists on placing in an article multiple references to their own works without tacit or express consensus, because doing this is unambiguously against our guidelines, and there is complete community support for dealing with it this way if necessary. (if an author places a reasonable reference, and if nobody objects, there is tacit consensus. That's not the case here). I very rarely actually need to block for anything, because when I give advice about how to avoid getting blocked, people almost always have the sense to follow the advice. However, as an admin, I cannot control the actual content in an article; if I edit, I edit as any other editor. But I have the responsibility to prevent disruptive editing behavior--if the matter is serious and I see it, I cannot just overlook it, but I must either act myself or call it to some other admin's attention.

Now, about the sources: Your books on the topic are self published. Unless you can show that you are an authority on the subject as proven by reliable sources, or unless the books get such reviews in reliable sources as to show them reliable , or get cited by reliable sources in such a manner as to show them reliable, or the like, they may not be used as references, by you or by anyone. There's really no room for equivocation here. They must be removed. Harris's work has been used here a few times--it has been cited to the self-published pamphlets with an inexact mention of the original publications on which they are based; this needs to be changed to show exactly where they were originally published, including the page numbers. He has no other relevant published work, so I cannot see how he would qualify as an expert, but his work is usable if published by a RS with proper editorial control, through peer-review or otherwise. The Mayflower Descendant is held by most major libraries, and is thus a possibly reliable source--I would accept it as a convenient source for the reprinted original documents; the question is accepting it as a RS for the synthesis. But I think it would need discussion. It is not a peer-reviewed journal, though I believe that in 1990 the editor was Alicia Crane Williams. As she has published nothing except through the society, or privately, I can see no reason for considering her editing as the necessary editorial control for a RS. [1] Based on what I see in Google Scholar, the publication is very rarely cited by ordinary historical journals--of course that database is not near complete. I'm open to being convinced for using it.

Probably a good deal of the article can be sourced from other sources. I tend to be flexible about accepting primary sources for the plain facts of a matter, though not for interpretation. If there is no RS for the interpretations in the article, they must be removed; the technique here is to just present the facts, and trust the reader to make the obvious conclusions. There would still be enough left to justify an article. i'll copy this to the article talk p. Discussion continues either there, or RSN. There is no point in discussing it further here. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sam and Diane nominated for deletion

I now that you favor fiction for extended coverages, especially during deletion discussions I created. In this case, I have created an article of the fictional couple of Cheers, and my work has been nominated as AFD. I wonder if it violates WP:5P, WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:N. Also, I wonder if this article is well-sourced without original research and synthesis. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Couples are a real problem, unless you have excellent sources specifically referring to them as such, but I'll see what I can do. If I were working in this field, what I would work on is, first, revising the existing plot summaries to be both compact and informative, and, considerably harder, examining closely the academic and popular literature that is beginning to get published about these shows. It's easier to find a good source, and then use it wherever it fits, than to look for sources on something very specific, because of the way the sources are spread out and difficult to find. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

typo

Hi DGG - It looks like you are on: I was moving William Warren Bartley to W.W. Bartley, III - how he was more commonly known - and I accidentally made a typo. I made it W.W, Bartley, III (with a comma after the 2nd W instead of a period). I did a subsequent move to the correct W.W. Bartley, III so that is now correct, but I think the incorrect W.W, should be deleted. Thanks - let me know if I am being incomprehensible at this late hour! Best wishes Tvoz/talk 08:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

done. In the future, all you need to do is to just place a {{db-r3}} tag on redirect errors like this. (for implausible typos) DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fast! Of course - I forgot about the tag. Thanks! Cheers Tvoz/talk 08:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Team gallery

I replied to your !vote if you wish to continue the discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think enough has been said. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 9 Febru

User:Cygnis insignis

I have checked several new pages created by this editor and think that it might be appropriate to grant autopatrolled rights. If you agree, you can perhaps take care of this? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

see my note on his talk p. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Well, the Lord hates a coward." (Mamet) 15:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 Question

Hello! I noticed you placed a notability flag on the Atlas Shrugged: Part 2 article, and I wanted to know more about why this film may not be notable. The first film was much discussed when it was released, and this sequel has been greenlit and will be released this Fall.

In any case, I would truly love for there to be a separate page for this film, and please let me know what I can do to make the page as best as it can be. Thanks! 23:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JR00576 (talk • contribs)

WP:NFF; checking it, I think there is no present chance of notability under that guideline. Personally, I think the guideline is a little too strict, but the present article shows why it's needed: there seems nothing yet to say, except what people claim they plan to do. I've decided it list it for WP:AfD . You'll been sent our standard notice about procedure there. But first read NFF, and ask yourself if you'd rather not change the article into a redirect to the section in pt.1. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it can be notable under our rules WP:FILM until principle photography actually begins. Until then,the position taken here is that it's not a film, but a rumor. I did not make that rule, and I'm not altogether sure I would agree with it, but it's what we almost always do, & I'm generally in favor of consistency. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rolandas Valiūnas

please create user:Tabbelio/Rolandas Valiūnas for future. --Tabbelio (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

please see [2] --Tabbelio (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I have sent a message to User talk:Shropshire Lad because of his disruptive editing today and how it is being done. He has made a particular offensive remark at the end of Katherine More talk page which I just found at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Katherine_More . I see no reason to comment sarcastically about a non-Wiki editor, especially one who has helped him in the past.Mugginsx (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You are continuing to make this personal. Talk about the edits. Try not to mention any specific editor at all, even in response to a comment that does mention one. When a conflict becomes personal, the normal community reaction is to give some degree of blame to everyone. That's my way personally, as well; if I need to warn, or even block, I usually warn or block both parties, in order to most effectively prevent continuing conflict without trying to judge the merits of the situation. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Will try my best. Mugginsx (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Have follow your suggestions as to references along with reading the guidelines. I have now removed all self-published sources I used of Dr. Donald F. Harris. I have, however, used the published sources in the periodical which I believe that you accept since it is acceptable to libraries. Have also used sources to Dr. Lindsay's book which you have voiced no objection to. Am hoping all my work will not be deleted again. Put information on article talk pages as was another of your suggestions and have asked that editors not change them to op cit. references and cited reason and cited Wiki Guidelines in that regard. Thank you for your help. I hope it will not be further needed. Mugginsx (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Intellectual property activism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Intellectual property activism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your PROD for University central colombia

I de-PRODed University central colombia at it appears to be a notable institution.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, now perhaps you;ll add some material for an article. But you are right, I should have done that myself. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ITM Power

Hi, Can I have a copy of the deleted ITM power, im going to rewrite it. Thanks, Willdude123 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

moved to User:Willdude123/ITM Power DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

BG

Please support or retract these statements

Being an admin does not give you permission to make any claims you wish, and then not be held accountable for them. Your recent 'attack' on my collection of diffs, which you called an "attack page," has been almost completely without diffs, but not without claims. These recent claims in particular I would like you to either support or retract.

• "You acknowledge in that talk page that you objections are 'largely about his attempts to rewrite the Karen Franklin article on Wikipedia.'"[3] I wrote no such thing. This is an on-wiki discussion about a Wikipedia content, editors, edit histories.

• "I have noticed the comments on Jan 6 in the talk p for Paraphilia. Please keep to discussing the issues involved in editing this article at hand, not the behavior of anyone elsewhere"[4]. I made no edits anywhere on Wikipedia on or near Jan 6th. I was on Wikibreak most of January.

• "You brought this here."[5] Again, this is an on-wiki discussion about a Wikipedia content, editors, edit histories.

• "a RW debate (if debate is not too polite a word) that has carried over here"[6]. For a third time, this is an on-wiki discussion about a Wikipedia content, editors, edit histories.

• "[BitterGrey] has stated at Del Rev, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 14 that they have no immediate intention of proceeding to RfC or elsewhere." Again, I wrote no such thing. Furthermore, WP:AGF requires us to assume that you saw the use and invitation to contribute at Hebephilia[7], in which case you would have known that I not only planned to use it in discussion, but already had used it. (RFC, etc., might have been necessary as a next step.) Other possibilities include your stalking of me via my contributions list, something you shouldn't be doing given your history with me; or that you filed both deletion nominations on behalf of someone else who, for some reason outside of good faith, didn't want to do it him or herself. Since there are at least two attack pages being maintained against me, perhaps someone wanted my list of diffs deleted without exposing their attack pages to review?

As an admin, your comments might hold some weight (among those who aren't familiar with you, at least). Given your position of responsibility, you need to be careful not to make irresponsible statements about other editors, especially those that you have a history with. Please support or retract these negative statements made against me. BitterGrey (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I really do not think that at this point there is much use continuing this--I know I have said everything I think needed to be said, and I think that by now you have said everything pertinent also. If we continue, we'll just get more and more annoyed at each other, and I can't imagine how that will help anything DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for User:BitterGrey/CAMH Promotion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:BitterGrey/CAMH Promotion. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BitterGrey (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afro-Dutch

I've closed the AfD as keep. Please expand the article and add references to help avoid another AfD! Deryck C. 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Salvador Tercero DRV

Hey DGG- had a question for you at the above-referenced DRV and wanted to make sure you didn't overlook it because I'm very curious to know your response. Might quickly change my POV on this. It's a sincere question, not some weak-kneed, ineffectual attempt at a broadside rebuttal :D. Take care, ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Shahid

I expect better of you than this -- both the edit summary implying that I haven't read the article and the restoration of something deleted on grounds that the sourcing is insufficient for a contentious claim in a BLP (a restoration coming with no effort to discuss on the talk page, no less). Since you insist on using the source, I will revise the text to match what it says. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make the bare assertion, I added the quotation, from which anyone can decide for themselves if the article makes fair use of it. FWIW, I have some doubts about the article, and I've been discussing them at AN/I. You may notice I did not say "keep" at the AfD, at least not yet. My position is very strongly that removing the material during the AfD is prejudicial to making a fair resolution, because some people do !vote without checking the article history. This isa very difficult case, of someone who apparently was once very active and now wants to distance himself. The ethics of how to handle it is not clear to me; I can make an argument that either way is immoral. Do no harm can be read in either direction--do no harm to whom, exactly? In the general case, people who were involved in what would normally be considered dangerous violent organizations may truly have changed their views--or may just want to conceal them. Even if they prevaricate on the facts, that does not prove they're being overall dishonest. One might think that someone who was trying to conceal present activity would hardly write us a long letter, but various people engaging in dubious commercial schemes have done just that. When faced with undecidable moral issues, we can of course resort to technicalities, but that's the way of a bureaucrat. DGG ( talk ) 14:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your kind words in support of my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous.

If I missed anything that you were looking for, or went in an odd direction with my answers, please feel free to give me some more pointers when you have time.

Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You went your own direction, and my questions were asked in order to give you the opportunity to do so. I tried to design them so they couldn't be answered by trying to agree with me. You did fine with them. DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

] 23:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What happened to XiangYu Education Group?

We concluded at WP:Articles for deletion/Huaian Foreign Language School that the article should be moved to Xiang Yu Education Group and then redirected... I can't figure out what happened. Did the move not happen? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

will be fixed; thanks for reminding me. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. :) I was worried that something had happened between your fixing up the page and now. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

MSK unblock

Please review/edit User talk:Mistress Selina Kyle/unblock conditions as appropriate. Nobody Ent 11:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Input

Hi DGG. I wonder if you might not have a moment to provide input here; I accede to your view on the matter, whatever it may be.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss one part of it, in particular, the part about boldly redirecting. Could you post it here, if the discussion you tried to post it at is not reopened. DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting eyes on my little essay?

hi DGG, i found you through the ambassadors page. I just wrote a little essayist thing about how grumpy I got after an article I worked hard on for Wikipedia got deleted.

I don't think people have really thought this out. I came here, for free, wrote an article for your project, and in response, many people tell me that the value of my time is ZERO.

If you spent time crafting a handmade gift for someone, and they decided to smash it rather than accept it-- how many more gifts would you give them?

I know deletions are neeed-- but to function as an editor, I need to know that my time is valued. Bad faith contributions, illegal content, or reliable sources-- we have to delete that.

My articles were about city councilmembers in a city with a population the size of Iceland. There were plenty of reliable sources-- it's just 'not notable' enough, I guess. Lesson learned.

Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit [if they know the secret handshakes].

anyway, that's my rant, I just wanted to make sure people see it. If you feel anything I say has merit, would you please share it in a wider forum? thank you! --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

City council members are an unresolved problem here. TThe decisions have been inconsistent. My own view is that the appropriate population cutoff is 1,000,000, but there are those who prefer higher or lower. We have no real mechanism for making a binding decision on such matters, and sometimes the results of the discussions are no better than random.

There is nothing wrong with complaining, because if people don't complain , we won't know what needs fixing: either we're doing something wrong, or we're not communicating adequately. Or, sometimes, the person simply does not understand Wikipedia and it's good for us to know that some people don't and never will. Sometimes people think we are the only information source in the world.

As for the substance, I've replied at the policy page where you've started the discussion. Thanks for notifying me about it. DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hannover, original spelling

hi dgg, thanks for your comment! where do you want a discussion about the original spelling of hannover? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

from the deWP article, the original spelling was "Hanovere". The deWP uses of course the current German name, which is clearly Hannover with two n's. The frWP uses "Hanovre". The place for a discussion is the article talk p. Since if the title is changed, the spelling in the article should be changed also, this is worth some discussion. I personally don't care which way it goes. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

On newbies and deletion

Hey David. Just saw your comments on the Village Pump thread about AfD etc. and wanted to say:

1. Thank you for the thoughtful commentary
2. I agree with you about requiring more human communication. If you want to talk about actually making that happen, then let's talk. But in the meantime we're trying to slowly but surely improve those related notifications, and your feedback on the work so far would be welcome here (See "templates tested" for a look at the different messages).

We have some very clear recommendations for next tries at new notifications for both PROD and AFD, which we will be publishing in a more succinct list soon. (Notes are on Meta, if you're interested.)

Thanks again, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, I'll get back there. But as you can see from the item just above, I do not have the luxury of being able to concentrate on any one thing here. sometimes everything appears equally important. And, as you can also see from the line it italics there, everything seems inter-related. We can't improve articles without more people. We can't get more people unless we fix our processes of working with articles. We can't stop to fix our processes when there are so many urgently needed specific actions such as the flood of promotionalism. So I try to work by turns everywhere. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it's our unique chicken and egg problem. :) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

anyway.  Tonkie (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily, which occured following the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

ProD of E/E/PE

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from E/E/PE, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Teuxe (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

another editor quite reasonably redirected it. We do not make separate articles for abbreviations used within a document DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Free Internet Correspondence Games Server

Could you please rename my article from Free Internet Correspondence Games Server to FICGS. FICGS does get google search results. Also I updated my sources. MikeWazowski (talk) wants to delete it. There is nothing wrong with my article, but he keeps nominating it for deletion. Could you please help solve the issue. Dimvass (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We have a Wikipedia Chess project for people who are interested in the area. I am clueless but leaving a note at WT:CHESS would probably be worth while. We also have a policy - WP:COMMONNAME - that helps to determine article titles. It would be easy enough for anyone to move this article to FICGS if that is indeed the appropriate name but, again, the Project can probably help you a lot here. I've left a brief note at the deletion debate but, really, it is not something that I am at all familiar with and I am better off leaving it to the experts! Best wishes. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've made a rename to the more informative FICGS (Free Internet Correspondence Games Server). I'll mention that at the AfD,which is where further discussion should be held. I personally have no opinion about notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Proded articles

The only problem with references for the Fear Street books that I PRODed was that I did look for sources and they don't exist, at least not where I can find them. All that I can find on the internet are links to many different fan pages, fan wikis, and places that will sell you the books. If there were reviews for these, they mostly predate the internet and don't even show up in book searches. (Sometimes the pre-internet stuff will show up in a book search.) I did try to find the sources for these (hence the "a search did not bring up anything" part of the PROD), but they just don't exist. Now as far as redirecting and merging goes, can I just create redirects without bringing it up for a consensus anywhere? If I have to get a consensus, where would I go for that other than AfD?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79

For reviews, try Book Review Index and Book Review Digest, available in print or online in all large libraries. (there is unfortunately no free equivalent) if you can't get any access to them, ask me. & I'll check for you, but I'll need a while before I get to it. There are several extensive selctive review journals for all childrens' literature, and they are indexed there. Also, have you tried GoogleNews archive; books of this sort often get newspaper reviews, and GNA goers back considerably in time. Most of the reviews will be behinda paywall, but there is usually enough free info for a citation.

For merging, the way to do it is to put a {{mergeto|Whatever}} tag on the article to be merged, a {{mergefrom|whatever}} tag on the proposed article where the content will be merge, and discuss on the talk page of the proposed merged article. If nobody objects in a week or two, then its OK to do it. (see WP:merge for various other useful templates) Just redirecting is probably not the best idea because there really should be at least some plot information, but how much to merge is always open to discussion. (my view of the plot sections on the existing articles is that some have way too much detail & others way too little--that;s typical for series like this.) . If you need more help, ask me. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'll take a look at that. I'll be going through my college library at least another 3-4 times this week, so I'll try and check then. Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79

please restore the article

It is not an attack article, and I was preparing more references about the biographies. Investigative journalism have recently showed the "experts" in question to be frauds, and I believe this is a notable topic, especially when their remarks threaten the lives of millions of sharks every year. Say no to shark's fin (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) "Soapboxing" means advocacy of a particular point of view, which is not allowed (your username therefore is against policy). This is an anti-shark-fin-eating person speaking here.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Jasper in my opinion has it exactly right, both about the purpose of Wikipedia, and --speaking now entirely personally--about the ethical position . See your talk page for details, and, if you want to edit further, pick a non-promotional user name., DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
    • My username doesn't promote anything. It's not a name of an organisation, and I do believe it's allowed by Wikipedia rules. It's entirely unethical for the "experts" to have not disclosed their COI that way, and then also having spammed their remarks into the shark finning article, which one must now correct. Say no to shark's fin (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
      • It actually isn't; a slogan that advocates a point of view is not allowed as a username. And, COI does not mean that; COI is an editing, not an "expert" policy. This is not something that deserves writing all over the place, but only something that needs a "however" or "but" clause in that paragraph's topic sentence.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

the user name is about as explicitly promotional as it gets, and has been blocked. Say no, if you do not see this, you are not sufficiently objective to edit an encyclopedia, and I warn you against doing so until you are prepared to write in a neutral manner. If there is something you are impassioned about, however rightly, you will not be able to edit here properly. The behavior of others will be dealt with by those who can deal with it properly: what you are responsible for, is your own. Editing the way you have been doing does no true help to your cause. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Block

Shouldn't it be soft?Jasper Deng (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The user is apparently not likely to edit properly under any user name; this is not the usual case of a promotional user name, where only the name is the problem. Even without the unacceptable user name, I would probably have blocked for the attack p. , especially in combination with the persistent editing to keep it. A soft block in these circumstances would just have resulted in more of the same under a different username. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Police officers charged criminally in Canada

Hi, would you please lock the article as it was "fully" written until the AFD is decided. They keep deleting it, so there is nothing to look at when building a consensus for the AFD. The AFD will make the decision not one or two editors who do not like the article. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG, in the interests of transparency, might it be wise to point out that you were canvassed prior to participating in the AfD? I'm not suggesting that your participation is improper, but it should probably be noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dror Green

Hi DGG, Since you deleted Dror Green you may wish to reconsider based on a request at WP:REFUND#Dror Green. Could the article have a few paragraphs removed to make it non promotional and thus be OK to keep? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

i di just that--thanks for mentioning it. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)