User talk:DGG/Archive 39 Apr. 2010

Jan10, Feb10, Mar10, Apr10 , May10 , Jun10 Jul10, Aug10, Sep10, Oct10, Nov10, Dec10

American Policy Center

Does policy not give seven days before an article gets deleted? You gave me a few hours. Can you explain to me your reasoning for such a speedy deletion? mark nutley (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm restoring it. I was probably too fast, even though the rule is that if it makes no claim to notability it can be immediately deleted--anyway, I should have recognized the name. Please add a ref. making some claim to notability right away, and go on from there. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i am waiting for User:Cla68 to come online, he has access to infotrac and is great at getting refs, I have copied the article back to here in case he is not around for a bit :) Thanks for giving me some time to get something notable mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

the under-construction tag I put on should be enough to give you a few days. Remember to show how it is independent independently of its founder. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Joedames

Care to have a word with this guy? He doesn't seem to get it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Viking Airlines destinations

Hey DGG. I saw your revert of my db-corp tag on this article and your edit note said that it didn't seem promotional. Maybe you were thinking of db-spam? I'm not going to revert it as I'm starting to learn that I don't really know much about Wikipedia lists. I know you've been around a while and know your stuff so perhaps you know more about lists than I do and can help me understand. OlYeller^Talktome 13:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. I meant to use my standard wording: "indicates at least some importance, so not a speedy. If sufficient importance doubted, use PROD or AfD." any indication of notability is enough to defeat A7--it's a very low bar. (obviously db-spam and db-corp tend to go together, and if relevant, I often give both reasons when I delete in order to avoid arguments) As for the article, lists of destinations of this sort are normal for airline articles, either separately or combined. Whether it is appropriate for a charter airline is an interesting question, which would need to be discussed at afd. Or propose a merge. Myself, I have no firm opinions on which way to go for this. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Communicating in small groups

I have nominated the page Communicating in small groups, which you earlier proposed for deletion, for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communicating in small groups. Your comments are welcome there. Cnilep (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hanso Foundation

See WP:Articles for deletion/Hanso Foundation. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggested a merge there.

Was wir sind

FYI, The Was wir sind article has been updated. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected your User page for 1 week per a request at RFPP. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks. curious timing. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)==Re List of proverbial phrases ==

DGG - You'll remember this one from an AfD a while back. I had slowly been adding sources when User:Toddst1 deleted all the unsourced entries to the talk page a few days ago. I notified him that I intended to revert that edit and informed him of this source: "Meanings and Origins of Phrases, Sayings and Idioms". Gary Martin. Retrieved 4 April 2010.. I used this source for inline citations on all the uncited entries. Additionally, I added a number of sources to the lead-in as sources for proverbial phrases. User:Toddst1 tagged the article as a copyvio while I was doing this and I removed the tag and continued adding sources. He has added the tag again today. Although Gary Martin may well own the copyright to his website, I don't think he owns the copyright to the individual proverbial phrases he lists on that site. Its evident that whoever originally created this list, derived the idea from Martin's site, but that doesn't automatically make it a copyvio. Since any alphabetical list of these phrases derived from any sources would mimic Martin's list, copyvio just doesn't seem like its there. But, since I've been involved in improving the article, I am reluctant to challenge the copyvio claim again. Any thoughts or help you might provide would be welcome.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

if you copy or paraphrase closely the definitions from that site it's copyvio, otherwise not. Just including phrases on that list and using it as evidence for inclusion is not copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks again. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorin Adam Matei

Notable per WP:PROF? WP:GNG? I found lots of Ghits, but am still not sure. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

not sure either; added link to CV. I see he has written at least one paper about WP. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For deletion

I see that you removed the tag for deletion for Huping Ling, and will respect it -- but you simply assert she's "certainly" notable -- the issue wasn't that the article needed editing (it did, a lot, and needs a lot more). The issue was that there are no third-party refs to indicate WP:Notability even for WP:Prof. Are you aware of some? DavidOaks (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

certainly notable because included in the standard reference work Contemporary Authors. That's a third party reference, though the exact link needs to be specified. Otherwise I would have said I think she;'s notable, but I consider a listing there definitive for notability, since WP includes what is in other encyclopedias. Sorry if I was too crytic in my edit summary. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Hi. I noticed you removed the delete tag from the Henry Smith article I had nominated for deletion and was wanting to discuss this with you.

This article does not seem to follow the sources it cites, and after reading seems to editorialize (not meeting neutrality standards). Albeit this is a particularly gruesome case, but the article seems to call in things that are not cited. Within the article itself none of the claims are sourced, making one wonder if the original author used original research or simply didn't cite a source.

If you take away the statements in the article that lack factual evidence based on the sources listed, it seems to me it again falls under the WP:N standard. 74.193.87.155 07:24 (UTC)

I have re-read the sources. Ref. 1, the NY Sun article documents the lynching, in about the same terms stated in the article. Ref .3, The book about Wells gives background; Ref. 5, the contemporary book from LC covers the subject in great detail, but its perhaps more of a primary than a secondary source.I am not sure in what respect you think the article does not follow the sources, but the article talk p. is the place to discuss it. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Survey on quality control policies

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you help explain what is not OR or SYN

I see that you contributed to the AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. Could you help explain to one of the editors that some things are not OR or Synthesis? I think she has a severe misconception about what is or is not OR or SYN, but I don't know how to explain it so she understands. (Conversely, if I am wrong then perhaps you can explain it to me.) Her response to your comment indicates that she has a very restrictive attitude about NOR and Syn. If you read her earlier comments in the same article, she seems to think that if she can't find an almost verbatim version of our article in RS then we are engaging in OR or Syn. Thanks in advance. (And I say that just as much for her behalf as for the article under discussion. She will be a better editor if she better understands WP policies.) Sbowers3 (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

a number of people there have made some odd objections, so could you give me a diff, or tell me just whom you are thinking of. I made another comment at the end, which may help a little in this direction. . DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It was dumb of me to omit the editor's name. It's SaltyBoatr. Here are some quotes:

• As to the "timeline" article, I don't see any coverage of "timeline of Tea Party protests" in the reliable sourcing so creation of such an article here would be synthesis, and disallowed per No Original Research policy here. It probably could find a home in some other Wikimedia project, but wouldn't fit here in this encyclopedia.
• My point is that I don't see any reliable sourcing that paints a picture of a "timeline of Tea Party protests". Editor's here should not be connecting the dots of the individual events into a timeline because that act of connecting the dots amounts to "synthesis of published material" that we don't see "clearly advanced by the sources".
• According to my reading of the policy, connecting the dots amounts to synthesis to advance a hypothesis, in this case that these series of events are cohesive, "a timeline". They may indeed be cohesive, but we can't synthesize that conclusion ourselves, we need to find it in reliable sourcing

She seems to think that unless RS has a chronological list of all events and the RS labels that as a timeline, then we cannot arrange events in chronological order without violating SYN. You'll probably want to look at her comments in context. Thanks again. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Toggle

Hi David,

I noticed that you placed a merge tag on Toggle (Doonesbury character), suggesting that it be merged into Alex Doonesbury. When suggesting a merge, it is best to place a "mergeto" tag on the article to be merged and a "mergefrom" tag on the receiving article. It is also preferable to start a merge discussion on the talk page of the receiving article as linked from both tags; starting this discussion allows other users to understand your reasoning behind suggesting the merge. Without starting this discussion, most merge tags are eventually removed without the merge taking place. For further information about how to propose mergers, check out this how-to guide.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I must confess I take shortcuts, especially late at night. ; I am one of the very few prod patrollers, and I try to screen soon after they are submitted every prod that is remotely in my subject competence (basically everything except actors, athletes, popular music, and some kinds of computer software).. My priority is to make sure I at least begin the rescue of what what can be rescued. I count on others such as you to notice, and finish the process, as you have in fact noticed. DGG ( talk ) 15:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Birney Elementary School Shooting

Since you regularly level the criticism at me; read the article before commenting, next time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birney Elementary School Shooting shows exactly what people think of your assertion that this is even a "school shooting". Ironholds (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I did in fact read it, so I understand what you mean: it is not perhaps in the true pure classic american sense a school shooting, but a shorting at a school; this arouses similar emotions. You are welcome to think me in error, or even perverse, but I did not make the particular mistake you think I did. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Assistance to rename an article

Hi DGG. The article San Carlos, Costa Rica has the name awfully wrong. The content refers exclusively to the town of La Fortuna, Costa Rica which is a district of San Carlos (I am from Costa Rica and the place is well-known because of the Arenal Volcano). There is already an article about the actual San Carlos: San Carlos Canton. Can you help me in redirecting or renaming this article correctly?--Mariordo (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. It doesn't actually take an admin unless there is an article that has to be deleted first. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't know, I though only admin had the tools. I am going to check how you did it so I will do it next time. Thank you for your prompt action.-Mariordo (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 04:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tenchu Characters article

Article: Characters of Tenchu. I just want to reconsider your disapproval of the proposed deletion of the said article. My intention is actually not to merge it with the main Tenchu article but to spread the contents on each of their respective videogame articles (since the article contains different characters from different games) thus, deeming the list a redundancy if that will be done. Also, I won't "direct copy" the contents but instead, I will try to search for more reliable sources and re-write character descriptions in a more Wikipedia manner. Therefore, I'm asking for the deletion. I hope you could reply to the matter. Thank you very much.--JCD ^(Talk) 06:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

that's not a deletion, that's a split. It should be discussed at the article talk page. If you cannot get consensus at the talk page, you can proceed by placing a RfC asking for outside opinions. The alternate way is to simply write the expanded articles and see if they stand, and if so, keep this one as a WP:SUMMARY. But be aware that such individual character articles are very frequently subject to attack, and although the results are unpredictable, some or all of them are often deleted. My advice is to instead expand the sections in place in the combination article. If you can expand them enough, with good third party substantial reference, then the split will be much easier to get consensus for. The important point is to get he content, not how it is arranged. I generally support keeping individual articles if they exists to be sure of retaining the content, but I rarely think it worthwhile to make them if they aren't already there, and risk losing the work. I've commented accordingly at the article talk p. . DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks for clearing the whole thing but I'm not really intending to create individual articles based on "each" of the description/per character but instead, just insert them on their respective articles. Example (specifically), the character Rikimaru, I'll insert him on Tenchu: Stealth Assassins article and there, write what he is on that videogame, no extensions but of course with a solid source (if I could find). Then, put him again on Tenchu 2: Birth of the Stealth Assassins (a sequel) and do the same thing. Then maybe a split? His general description (what he is on the whole thing) on the Tenchu (franchise article). Hope this isn't confusing...--JCD ^(Talk) 05:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It would not be confusing , except that I do not know this series. Normally in such series many of the characters continue from one part to another, and there is an advantage in discussing them in a centralized place, instead of repeating the background in separate discussions of them in every every article. If an individual character is important to a particular part and unique to that part, it may still be cleaer to discuss them in the context of the other characters. On the other hand, if this is a game where the characters are different for each part, and only the general theme and setting repeats, then the characters may indeed be more clearly discussed with the parts. Remember that you are writing for people like me, who may at most have head of the game and want to learn something about it, rather than regular players looking for specific details. That sort of expert user is best served by an external site, not WP. All of this needs to be discussed with the other people working on the game, for unless you have some agreement on how to handle it, there is no good way to make progress. If you all agree on what you want to do , and need some advice or help how to accomplish it, ask me, but what I cannot do is tell you what solution will best fit your own situation. DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I see.. Thank you very, very much for that word of advice! I think I misunderstood what I want to happen hahaha. I believe your advice would work best specially your mention of those who aren't familiar with the series; clearing things about it would be better to talk about same characters in a "centralized place". Well, honestly, there really aren't much different characters on that game as the main cast simply continue on a sequel and such. Your words have made make up my mind. Again, thank you very much. --JCD ^(Talk) 11:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)--JCD ^(Talk) 11:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please check your talkpage history

It appears an anonymous IP wants to edit a protected page. I thought the edit was vandalism and rolled it back because it was a massive deletion. Please decide if you want to cite this IP as it is a level four. --Morenooso (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for catching it. It seems however to just be an error from a somewhat confused editor with a repeatedly deleted and protected article, not our previous vandal. DGG ( talk ) 08:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)== Gil-Sung Park and Articles for deletion/Gil-Sung Park ==

Dear DGG, could you have another look at Gil-Sung Park's article and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil-Sung Park? Would you have any tips as to how it might be saved if enough has not already been done. I hope this is not too big an imposition. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

RiCEST article

Hi DGG. As someone who participated in the deletion review for the Regional Information Center for Science and Technology article, would you have the time to take a look at the notes I'm making here? What I'm looking for is comments on whether an article is feasible and (if possible) help in drafting an article. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

checking.... DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

finally got to it; I think it will hold. What is struck me as remarkable & not to our credit is the redlinks for the universities. 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St.Paul-O.L.V school

There is a notable fact in the school's history that appears on their website. In 1892, the World's Columbian Exposition which became the predecessor of the Chicago World Fair, was held. It was Columbian because it celebrated the 400th anniversary of Columbus' voyage. I tried searching down that this school received an award at this exposition as per A Brief History of St. Paul School www.stpaulchgo.org. Their site states that the school children won excellence awards at what amounts to the first Chicago World Fair. Unfortunately, I can find no WP:V or WP:RS site to confirm the entry. What do you think? --Morenooso (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

checking.... DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article will be merged. I tried to find some of the articles I saw the other night before my computer dumped. One that mentions Catholic participation is An inventory of the Catholic Educational Exhibit, World's Columbian Exposition, Chicago, Photographs at The American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives libraries.cua.edu. It is too bad that as with WP:BIO that WP:ANYORG does not exist stating, Any nonprofit organization that 100 years of serving a community is notable. --Morenooso (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

PlaneShift deletion

Please review the deletion log of 8 April and in particular the deletion of PlaneShift article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_April_8 There is no reason in the world this article cannot stay on wikipedia. Thanks. --79.40.27.216 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

this is not a subject I usually work on, nor did I ever edit the article, nor did comment in any of the AfDs. You have seen what comes of such canvassing--Not only does it get you blocked, but people resent it and comment accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor Fix

[1] I assume that was correct? Apologies if not. Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

sure. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you try?

If you get the chance, can you try explaining to this guy just why unilateral blank-and-redirect of everything he doesn't think is important isn't a good idea? I've reached the banging-my-head-against-a-brick-wall stage by now as the error in the statement "Newspaper reports are primary sources and so can't be used" doesn't seem to be sinking in. He might take it better from someone like you who demonstrably has never expressed an interest in his pet area (railroad stations) and thus can't be accused of protecting their corner. – iridescent 22:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that; hopefully it might sink in now. (I do think that merging-keeping-all-content is an option that should be used more often, though—to my eyes, A1 road is far more useful to all concerned than St John Street, Goswell Road et al as a dozen separate stubs—but I think outright-deletion should always be a last resort, and the attitude among the newer editors seems to be that the project has grown too big and needs to be trimmed back.) – iridescent 23:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been mentioned...

Wikipedia:ANI#Okip_creating_battlegrounds. Not saying that I think you should respond, but your previous statements on Okip are currently being caricatured in this thread. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

so I have noticed. Let them continue mentioning it if it amuses them. I have just now written something there myself. DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello and a question

Hi. You've been a big help with my questions before so I thought I'd ask for your perspective. Someone brought Shane Salerno to my attention because the page mirrors that of the man's IMDB page. That being said, the whole article reads at best like a resume and at worse like an advertisement. Both violate the NPOV WP seems to strive for (or at least people like you do). I've made some efforts--predictably sloppy and recursive--that has brought the not-so important article some attention but I'd like youre take. It's also being discussed on the conflict of interest board. Thanks in advance. Jim Steele (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I gave some advice on the COI noticeboard. To be exact, I just repeated what Off2riobob had previously said. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nabble

Hi. I came across this thread with these navigation links at the top: "Nabble | Old Nabble1 | WikiMedia » Wikipedia » English Wikipedia". I got to this discussion, somehow, (I don't know how) from "Signpost". Essentially, my question is - what is it? I noticed that you participated in the discussion dated April 2 (or so) about the fix PR reps find themselves in when promising clients an article on Wikipedia. I guess that is why I am asking you - becaue I recognized your Wiki-name. Thanks. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure I understand your question, but if you are looking for the thread it is at [2] and my posting is [3]. You'll see my position, as supported most clearly by [4] is that PR people can write good NPOV articles if they are willing, and learn how. I usually tell them that one mark of a skilled professional in PR or advertising is their ability to adapt to the medium. Some understand; some do not. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your view completely. I wasn't actually asking about your position, since I agree with it. I guess I wasn't clear about what I was asking. Sorry about that. I don't know what that discussion forum is. My question is: Is it a Wikipedia general discussion forum of some sort? Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is where I saw the discussion [5]. If you notice at the top of the page there are Navigation links such as "Nabble", "Old Nabble", "Wikimedia", etc. , etc. If I am still confusing you, don't worry I will figure it out eventually. No need to waste a lot of time on this question. Thanks in advance. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Nabble is a gateway and archive of a great many mailing lists, & includes the WP related ones. SeeWP:Mailing Lists for general information about the various WP lists --the full table of all of them is at [6] The posting is at WikiEN-L, the principal list for off-WP general discussion relating to the English WP. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Leahey

What do you think? Bearian (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

commented there; I had hoped to say keep but on analysis I had to say delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind to match yours. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Johanna Budwig

Thank you for taking part in the recent Johanna Budwig deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Budwig. The proposer of the deletion has gone on to attempt to trim the article substantially and, consequently, the article has been temporarily protected from updates. I would appreciate the comments of others interested in this article at Talk:Johanna Budwig. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

replied. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I've added my comments to Talk:Johanna Budwig. I'd be interested in your views, particularly on restoring the other ACS reference and tackling the Nobel Prize canard. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

...for the List of food products article. In the old days it was virtually impossible to start any list at all without it being tagged for deletion. Exceptions began to occur when the lists were restricted to other Wikipedia articles. Had I started this article from scratch I would have therefore looked for Wikipedia article on various food products and included only them in the list. I did look at the Wikipedia Egg white article for one but found no nutrition facts label nutrient information. Consequently I had to resort to the food product labels themselves which are legally binding and published documents along with legally binding and published register receipts and bar code labels found on the food products themselves. UPC and PLU code have been included to be sure similar foods with different nutrients amounts were not accidentally or mistakenly substituted when attempting to move from the information to the real world.

Thanks again,

Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the old days? In the present days it is difficult to start any type of article without people trying to delete it n the first minute. the thing is, this table is not useful unless it's much expanded. I would suggest doing so very quickly, right now in the course of the discussion: to get them, go to the page for the template I mentioned in the discussion, and look at "What links here" The work will not be wasted in any case, for if deleted it can be moved into your user space for further additions. However, one of the initial arguments the anon gave for supporting it was its usefulness in a specific diet plan, and that is a very poor argument, for that is precisely the sort of thing we do not try to do here. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

East Indian people

Hi, since you have removed the speedy delete tag on East Indian people, maybe you would be interested in this discussion related to this article::The confusion regarding "East Indians". --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Mother Superior / abbess

Can I get an opinion from an experienced Wikipedian? It's been recently drawn to my attention that the most common use of the phrase Mother Superior (the head of a religious order) is a disambiguation page with a dictionary definition at the top. I had intended to start a dedicated stub (Mother Superior (religion)), but then realised that anything I could write that was stub-length would just be a duplication of the article abbess. However the definition of Mother Superior would ultimately be wider and broader than abbess, although I'm not qualified to write that full article, or interested in doing it. Also, possibly as Mother Superior (religion) is the most common use, possibly it should usurp the basic Mother Superior article and move the rest of the contents there to Mother Superior (disambiguation). As someone of experience, what would you recommend as the best way of resolving this tangle? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What you want to do makes sense, but I don't really see the point of bothering until you or someone is prepared to expand the article. As iti s, people will still find the right article they want. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to Film PROD

Would you reconsider this, or start an AfD, given that there already is a summary at List of Community episodes? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What is needed is somewhere between what is here and the over-brief descriptions in the current list. As I am not familiar with series, I'm not the one do the rewrite. That would be a proper merge, not a redirect, which is what you seem to want. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Sun Youth Organization - deleted page

Could you please be specific about why the page was deleted? I posted a comment the deletion board indicating the organizaiton is an important Montreal based social justice organization in Montreal Quebec that has been a leader in the development of community service programs. The profile was prepared by a student who is not affiliated with the organization. He used several outside sources in preparing the profile. We used models of other wikipedia pages profiling community based organization in preparing the article. Please explain why you have deleted the page and how to reinstate it. Thank you. RELI312 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it for several reasons. One, there was no indication of its importance. According to the article, it engages in various programs in the Montreal area, but there was n indication of ts impact--the only indication at all was a $9 million dollar budget, which is actually quite small for a social organization. Th importance was supported by almost no third party sources. The only significant one at all was an article in the Toronto Gazette, which was not properly cited but is partially quoted in http://www.newmansownfoundation.org/Content/368.php, where the source is given as "Metallica Cuts Sun Youth In On Their Haul" By Bernard Perusse September 22, 2009, The Montreal Gazette. The link to the full article of the newspaper site does not however work & that fact in any case does not necessarily show importance. . The only other outside source is general one & I doubt it refers to the group at all--if it does, a quotation should be provided. Second, the article is highly promotional, no matter who wrote it. It talks in detail about all the activities, however minor, and gives nonspecific praise of the group's efforts. It contains mainly such material as "It is important for all individuals to wear proper clothing, especially during some tough winters that Montreal has had, but sometimes it can get expensive. Sun Youth helps people through their hard times by outfitting them with either new or previously used clothing as long as it is in good condition. " The first part is general background, & not needed in an encyclopedia. The second part gives no definite information.

It is possible that an adequate article might be wrtten on the subject. A search for the group on the Montreal Gazette site shows a number of articles. Most are trivial mentions, some describe its activities. It would be possible to write a decent article based on these. Best way to do it is like this: I moved the present article to User:RELI312/Sun Youth Organization. When you're satisfied, ask me or another experienced user here to have a look at it. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We will work to update as per your comments. All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RELI312 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD for reference work

Could you please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest African Americans? The discussion could use your expertise in library sciences. Abductive (reasoning) 00:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on notability of a professor

Hi there DGG. I was planning on writing an article on Thomas E. Wartenberg, but I would like to seek your opinion on whether he meets the notability criteria first. I have written up a short blurb so far, but I would like your opinion on whether or not it would be worthwhile to continue. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

yes, as the author of multiple well received books from major academic publishers he meets WPPROF as an expert--he mayalso meet it as author of widely used textbooks. Additionally, he meets WP:AUTHOR. ; I filled it in a little, using only WorldCat. It would be useful to check other reviews, even on amazon, to get some information about his date of birth and his degrees. adding the other books is optional, but normally I add every book, and just count the articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Catalin Partenie

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

school

Hi DGG. I know you are highly experienced in the norms w/regard to school notability, so would be interested if you have a moment w/your input in this discussion. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Tx for your input.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

May I bother you as a librarian?

We have a problem with the article for Herbert Schildt, who is widely known as an author of programming books. A lot of people seem to like his books, but experts generally agree that they are riddled with extremely misleading inaccuracies and can't be recommended. (I like an Amazon review best: "The American National Standards Institute sells ISO 9899:1990 (the C language standard) for around $130. Schildt's annotated version sells for about $30-40. The price difference reflects the value of the annotations.") These criticisms are very well known on the internet, but it appears that none of the detailed critical reviews has ever been formally published. But without that the article would be incomplete. Do you know any special methods for locating formally published book reviews that are not filtered through the publishers of the books? Hans Adler 07:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well known problem; most academic review sources tend to review only what they can recommend. I'll see what I can do, but another approach is to look for published reviews on other books on C, which might compare them to his. Another is to look for comments in truly reliable blogs or mailing lists that will be considered as RSs. I don't know this field, but, for example, CHMINF often has postings calling attention to bad books in chemistry from highly thought of librarians who can be shown to be authorities . DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! "[C]omments in truly reliable blogs or mailing lists" is basically what we already have, but somehow it doesn't seem enough for BLP concerns, especially given the extremely negative nature of the reviews. What we currently have is self-published reviews of two books from one ISO standardisation committee member each, and a mention in the C FAQ, which has a print edition.

The idea of looking in reviews on other C books sounds excellent, although the field seems to be suffering from a general lack of formally published reviews and I wouldn't know where to look for them. But I will keep this in mind. Obviously any further help would be very much appreciated.

Incidentally, your first sentence sounds very familiar from my own field (mathematics). Hans Adler 07:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• These are dangerous waters. Please see The professor, his wife, and the secret, savage book reviews on Amazon for a recent example of an unpleasant maelstrom. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, but this is different from your case. Three top experts have made their criticism public, with detailed proof, in the informal way that is usual in their field. That's very different from anonymous Amazon reviews. Hans Adler 09:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that as long as you kept the reported criticism strictly to the books, it would not be a BLP violation, any more than reporting that a work of fiction was not well received, although I can see how it could be considered as such. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

the distinction must be made between saying the author is incompetent and that the work is incompetent. An individual of the highest quality can sometimes do low quality work. Making an incorrect calculation is different from not knowing arithmetic. (cf. Perscitia). DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem in this case is the consistent poor quality of the man's books. [7] They are full of beginner's mistakes. Another problem is that a certain banned user regularly tries to remove all criticism from the article, and as a result we regularly get new users not familiar with Schildt looking at the BLP situation. Hans Adler 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The usual way is to report the information book by book and let people draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately, they are published in a typical pattern for the field with a great many overlapping titles, and the reviews can be expected to be spread out fairly diffusely. and semi-protection can help a little; I applied it. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that issue when the BLP noticeboard complaint was around, and found a published magazine that has numerous critical reviews, C-Vu from the ACCU (organisation).[8] That won't satisfy our friend who defends Schildt to the last drop of blood, but should satisfy our reliable source standards. --GRuban (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an excellent find. It appears that the ACCU restructured their webpage dropped many reviews, and dropped the indication of where the reviews first appeared. It's very fortunate that the Russian mirror was not updated and still has all this information. I will see what I can do with this. Hans Adler 17:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Eric Ely

It's not the article that I edited, and it's up at AfD again. For what it's worth, I made a complex argument that was wiped out post hoc. Keep, delete, or TransWiki? Bearian (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems a matter for the audit subcommittee. Do you have a copy of what you posted? DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kresimir Chris Kunej (2nd nomination)

I'd love to hear your reasons--it's pretty obvious to me that this subject is not notable for having published a whole lot of publications that are being cited or even held in major libraries. Most of the WP:PROF guidelines are immediately non-applicable (subject isn't a professor, far from it), and what subject did for the profession of translators and the rules for private schools is entirely unclear--the only thing that is clear is that he was interviewed on TV, for this one thing. Hell, I'm more notable than this subject. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the notability here is borderline. I said weak keep, not keep. To me, weak keep or delete means the alternative would also be reasonable, and that I'm not going to argue the issue-- as contrasted to straight keep or delete, where I will argue it if challenged because I think it's definitely the right answer. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

uri

Sorry about my April problems. Uri Amir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhall10067 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Kratos Multi-physics

21:32, 23 April 2010 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "Kratos Multi-physics" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.cimne.com/kratos/)

"A tag has been placed on Kratos Multi-physics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. "

Indeed the content of "Kratos Multi-physics" is a mix between two source pages: http://www.cimne.com/kratos/ and http://kratos.cimne.upc.es/kratoswiki, and there isn't any copyright infringement because these external website belongs to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javier.Mora (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

you need to follow the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, either by marking the web pages as free content with an appropriate , or donating the rights to us in the formal way specified there. However, there are two other problems: first, it is necessary to have substantial coverage in 3rd party independent references published in reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs, nor derived from their web page or public relations sources. the best type of such sources is published product reviews, and without them, an article on computer software will generally be deleted. second, the article itself must not be primarily promotional--the article there described the program in such a way that it came pretty close to it, . An article explaining the functions is not promotional; an article saying why one should use it or saying how food it is, is promotional, unless there are published external sources to cite for the statements. Because of this, it would be necessary to rewrite much of the article substantially, and in similar situations people generally find it easier to rewrite entirely than to bother with permissions. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hard-to-detect copyvios

THe page Alpha Omega Communication & Marketing is indeed a copyvio, just as you suspected, only, it was from the kind of page Google just can't detect. Go to http://www.alphaomega-tremblant.com/fr/index.html#Scene_1, then click "Compagnie," then "Historique." -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Speedy_deletion_Uighur_house

now tken care of. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I believe that issues such as the one I raise here are among your areas of expertise.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see quite how I have anything relevant to say. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

At one point (it's now been deleted) there was an effort at humor there ... see this.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, DGG. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I would like you to redact your claim that myself and other editors are "bullying" others made at this page. Apart from the fact that such a claim is clearly untrue, it is also a personal attack. Given your experience here I have refrained from templating you. Black Kite 21:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(removed) not by me--BK has chosen to remove some material here added by Okip, and his reply to it. As seen below, I agree that it was not wise of Okip to have said it here, and that BK's reply was almost equally unwise; so was BK's decision to remove it, but I have decided not to restore it, in order to avoid exacerbating the matter yet further. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the material was removed by Ikip. Jack Merridew 06:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, I advise you not to respond to baiting. BK, I had not directly named you, but it seems you are intent on demonstrating that I would have been correct to do so. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :( I will unwatchlist your page. I just don't want you to feel overwhelmed, and feel like you have other editors who support you.

The AFD has become a who's-who of editors I have argued with in the past, many who I think are reflective of the continued combative attitude of wikipedia. To echo what many journalists have said.

"Whilst Wikipedia and Wikimedia are, in themselves, exciting projects, their structure, design and combative social norms do not currently make them the friendly or the protected space that museums tend to be comfortable operating in." Powerhouse Museum.[9]

Okip 21:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I know very well where I have support, and where I do not. I am not disturbed by criticism; either I am I right, or I am grateful for being convinced I have been in error. I wish I had realized as much in elementary school. Anyway, I have other things to do this evening. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The material BK asked me to redact is at [10], where BK chose to remove it himself, citing NPA. Looking at it again, I see it did not name him. This all the more demonstrates what I already said, that he was indeed engaging in the conduct I was talking about in general. Again, i am not restoring it to avoid making matters even more difficult. I see it is, after all, possible for what happens here to bother me. Tampering with other people's comments on an editor's talk p. and with his comments on AN/I is a fairly sure way to get anybody angry. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That edit disturbs me. The collegiality expected of administrator-to-administrator disagreements appears not to have been sustained in this particular redaction. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter who is named. Accusing people of "bullying" is a violation of NPA, made worse when it isn't even close to the right definition. Bullying is persistent psychological or physical harrassment of a person for no reason other than to inflict suffering on them. It is definitely not calling out someone who has made a Wikicareer of attempting to end run past our policies and guidelines, who has previously been blocked and warned by ArbCom for it, and whose efforts now appear to be catching up with him. To claim it is, as Mr Z-Man says in the ANI thread, is nonsensical. DGG doesn't have to agree with that, and probably doesn't, but if you're going to accuse people of bullying you're seriously going to have to do better than that. Black Kite 07:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and DGG - yes I removed the attack from ANI and would do it again. However, I think you'll find it was Okip who tampered with your talk page. Black Kite 07:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

An accusation isn't a clearcut enough violation of NPA to warrant editing someone else's comment. It's always going to be a subjective matter, whether or not an accusation is unfounded, but everyone pretty much has the right to make them. If you see an accusation that you think was made in haste and needs to be reconsidered, it's better to ask the accuser to consider striking. Removing statements from people's comments is rather drastic and should probably be reserved for extreme circumstances; not to mention editors who haven't yet earned the benefit of the doubt. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:00, 4 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiBullying. I was not talking about the dictionary definition.

Yes, I removed the comments to stop exacerbating the situation. Sorry for the confusion DGG.

Black Kite, bad faith comments against me aside:

"someone who has made a Wikicareer of attempting to end run past our policies and guidelines", "tampered with your talk page"

...it is important to point out that the administrator who blocked me for canvassing lost his adminship in that arbitration. I got a warning.

DGG, if you no longer want me to comment here I will not, you are welcome to delete my comment too. Okip 09:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

@Equazcion - I did ask DGG - it's the first post in this thread.

@Okip - that ANI thread doesn't even meet the Wiki definition (which is an essay and merely someone's opinion anyway). No-one said "you must not do this or you'll be blocked" - the thread (not started by myself) was along the lines of "Okip has previously done this and been censured for it - could the community consider whether the current behaviour is a repeat of this behaviour?". My opinion - and those of others - was that it is. I am also interested to see your implied thread of de-adminship should I continue this, considering your claim of bullying. However, this conversation will no doubt go nowhere like many on this issue, as you are clearly incapable of admitting to any fault, and it's merely clogging up DGGs talkpage, so I'll withdraw from it here. I still believe I was correct in my actions - you and others are of course welcome to disagree. Black Kite 09:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong but it seems that while you did ask, you didn't wait for an answer, or for DGG to edit his comment himself, and you edited his comment for him. I could be wrong. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:14, 4 Apr 2010 (UTC)

Equazcion, I did reply to BK, saying "BK, I had not directly named you, but it seems you are intent on demonstrating that I would have been correct to do so". I intended him to understand by that that I was declining to redact. BK apparently understood it as I intended, and decided to redact it himself--a step to which I think very wrong of him, but have decided not to pursue further. One of the results of redacting people's talk pages tends to be confusion about the sequence of who did what, and that is the case here also. It's essentially the common problem seen reverting, or deleting and restoring, or oversight, that one is apt to inadvertently remove good edits as well as bad, or make the sequence of discussion unintelligible. The best way of redacting one's comments on my talk page, if anyone cares to do so, is to strike-out. The best way of redacting others comments here is not to do so. As for AN/I, removal of comments is something that may occasionally be necessary, but should be done by a neutral party, on the analogy of Arb Com editing by the clerks. If I say on that page something someone objects to, they should object right there, (as another person correctly did) but not remove it themselves. I avoided naming anyone specifically, but left it open to people to infer what they would. Naturally, this can have somewhat the same effect, but i try to avoid names in such discussions as a way of trying for at least surface politeness. I use them only to clarify whom I am responding to, as I do here. As for my actual statement, i continue to think it correct. I have, for that matter ,expressed the same thing previously regarding the treatment of that particular editor by other parties. But my own feeling is that we have enough substantive disputes to deal with, and should avoid extend them outside that sphere--our energies are better spent of the actual issues than on each other's behavior. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether BK acted before you answered or acted despite your answer, the result is the same. We are basically in agreement though. There was no reason your comment should've been tampered with this way, especially not by someone involved. You're not the kind of person to ever really defend yourself when someone starts with you directly, but that only compounds how wrong this is. I'm surprised that someone with Black Kite's rather sound reputation is acting this way, and isn't recognizing his own involvement and subjectivity. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:21, 4 Apr 2010 (UTC)

• (unindent) I said I wouldn't respond again, but I think I need to quote WP:NPA - "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I believed the text I removed ("This is part of a patten of bullying weaker people who try to rescue articles and succeed ... to attack a weaker opponent is almost the definition of bullying") to be a clear-cut personal attack (even without regarding its accuracy). Hence I believe I was acting according to policy. Black Kite 20:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Whether an accusation is a personal attack is a very subjective matter. If one possibly needs to be removed, that should be decided by an uninvolved party. An involved person saying "Your opinion of his actions is unfounded so it needs to be removed" is something we see often and expect from inexperienced or petty editors, but not from seasoned and respected editors. If someone makes a characterization you disagree with, and you're involved, you need to argue with it, at most; not remove it. Discussions of editor behavior need to involve characterizations that not everyone will agree with. If everyone were to remove the characterizations they disagree with on the basis of NPA, discussions would never get anywhere, which is why that's basically never done. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:40, 4 Apr 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, that depends. If the comment had been "I believe you're attacking Okip unjustifiably", then that's clearly an opinion, even if it's a negative one; not a personal attack. However my judgement was that "This is part of a pattern of bullying" shifts from opinion to statement of fact, and from negative to personal attack. Hence my redaction. Anyway, given the way the ANI thread has continued, I think this is probably moot now; I'm not going to comment further there or here. Black Kite 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      • The characterizations in behavioral discussions are very often made as statements of fact rather than qualified with the more PC "I believe" or "IMO". In a subjective discussion it's basically understood that everyone is stating their opinions without having to explicitly state as much. I sometimes feel like saying to an opponent "...you mean 'in your opinion'", because I'm offended by a characterization, but that again would be a petty remark. You certainly don't see much comment removal on that basis, if at all. It's better to simply accept the fact that in a behavioral discussion people are going to say things you find distasteful, rather than crying NPA, even though on the most technical level you're allowed to. Again, most seasoned editors have figured this out, which is why what you've done here is pretty much never done. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:02, 4 Apr 2010 (UTC)

A charge of doing something wrong is not necessarily a personal attack. the true meaning of NPA is an an attack on someone as a person, instead of discussing the issue involved. A discussion of someone's behavior is inherently personal. People have to be able to say that other people are doing wrong. Bullying occurs, and when it occurs, it is wrong. We can dispute whether a particular series of events is bullying, but to say something is bullying not a personal attack, unless it is being made instead of discussing an actual edit or policy issue. Indeed, at that very discussion, the accusation against the original party was considered by theose who made it as justified by the misbehavior, but was characterized by me and him as a personal attack based on having lost a group of afd debates. Yet if he or I had deleted the complaint, it would have been abuse of AN/I. There is almost never a need for personal comments at an article talk page , and rarely at a policy talk page, but one of the roles of user talk pages is to make complaints, and, particularly, at a page one whose primary purposes is to resolve complaints and settle disputes such as AN/I, one must be able to make the complaint and talk about the dispute. But apparently some think that only one's own side has the right to complain, because the opponents must inevitably be wrong and any complaint from them is persecution and attack.

As far as I am concerned, I would prefer to let the matter rest here. I do not intend to debate against those whose reply to me consists of deleting my comments--nothing could be more futile. Nothing could be more unnecessary. DGG ( talk )23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeat AfD

Please see this--Fiskeharrison (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

said again what I said at earlier afd. I consider this an appropriate notification, since I had participated earlier. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Carol Smart

Could you please look at Carol Smart? I suspect that she is notable enough for the article to survive AfD, but you might be able to improve the article. My last edit is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carol_Smart&oldid=355483370 Since then, another editor has restored some detailed reviews of her work that I had removed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

clearly notable. I adjusted the bibliography. If the material returns it may need protection. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

update on GBOD

Hi, DGG I've made changes to the GBOD page to try to make it have appropriate language for Wikipedia. When you have time, please let me know if you approve. I appreciate your patience. GBODtom (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Help with sourcing from databases

Hello! I spoke to you about a year ago about how I could improve my references from lexisnexis, especially when I was unsure about whether there was any free equivalent content available online. If I remember correctly you advised me to include quotes with my citations so that other people could verify what I was citing.

This has gotten me into a little pickle at the Lisa McPherson Trust article. I've put in quotes for every citation but it looks a little bulky. Could you please advise me on the best course of action to take?

Thank you in advance! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Adirondack lean-to

Hi, DGG. You removed the Copyvio template from Adirondack lean-to with the edit summary "other version copied from WP". I suggested that this is possible, I even think it's likely, but I'm not sure it's the case. If you are sure, or if you think my surmise is sufficient to dismiss copyright concerns, then that's fine with me. Cnilep (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

there are two attitudes : guilty unless proven otherwise, or the opposite. i go with the opposite. Anyone wants to challenge it, they can challenge it. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

M. Christian

I'm not sure that your removal of the prod was consistent with the new BLP rules per WP:BLPDEL. Did you ensure that it have "at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article" and if so, what was the WP:RS and the statement? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

certainly. He did indeed write the books he is credited with writing, as proven by the extremely reliable source , WorldCat. Further, these books have been commented on by several secondary sources. He works in a very specialized genre, and sources can be expected to be rather tricky. what does not not follow the BLP rules, was your having placed the tag in the first place. At the time you did so, there were sufficient sources already on the article to provide some documentation for the claims, though the were erroneously listed as external links. BLP prod is limited to articles without sufficient documentation for WP:V. The documentation does not have to be be good enough to prove WP:N. Since I consider it essential that anyone who works with these articles should improve them if they can, I did not limit myself to removing your tag, but found and added additional sources. I enforce the rules--when there are BLP prods that I cannot find sources for at the end of 10 days, I delete them. Having now worked with over 100 such articles, I have observed that , except for articles on people from geographical areas where sources are very hard to find, there are sources for about 80% of them, and of the remainder, almost all could have been dealt with by speedy.

I continue to consider the rule unnecessary, but since it is adopted, I shall work according to it until we see WP:BEFORE required, whereupon the number of valid prods will drop to so low a level that the community will realize its error. The rule harms Wikipedia , for it hampers those of us who care about sourcing enough to actually source articles instead of complaining that others did not do so, by requiring us to work on matters of very low priority, without time to work on the gross errors and bad sourcing already in Wikipedia 18:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Worldcat link is to another book of a similar title: The bachelor machine : desiring production "and" its reader by Samuel Trammell; Brown University. Dept. of Modern Culture and Media, a thesis published in 1991. So what your "extremely reliable" link proves is that M. Christian did not write this book. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed now. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I make no claim to myself be extremely reliable. I am certainly capable of getting references wrong 1% of the time or so. But there were multiple references, and any individual one of them is enough to defeat BLP Prod. The article is, I see, at AfD, and the community will decide, which is the way things should be handled. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You are way too kind to this nominator. I shook my head when I saw the PROD protest quickly followed by the AfD listing. Instead of trying to improve the article, the nominator is intent on deletion. It even ruined some of my work because my laptop hicced up while I was editting the article (he took out a section header I was working on). You defended his actions quite well even though he has made some serious errors like giving you the warning and then voting in the AfD. I noted all that on his talkpage and it got pointed out to him by another editor in the AfD.

If I ever need mercy, I know who I am coming to (and that is meant as supreme praise for all your actions and gentle administrations). --Morenooso (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of M. Christian

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am unsure why it was nominated. The nominator needs to read WP:BEFORE. --Morenooso (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is another of the nominator's errors. This warning belongs on the creator's talkpage. Additionally, he voted. Everyone knows the nomination is the nominator's secret vote. --Morenooso (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

the notice belongs here too. Everyone who is involved in a substantial way with the article should get a notice. I certainly do expect to get a notice when a prod I've declined is nominated for AfD. Kenilworth Terrace did quite right to tell me, and I thank him for it. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And thank you too -- I appreciate it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR

In the past you participated in a discussion regarding the appropriateness of using FAIR as an RS. The question has arisen again, in this case with regard to a BLP. The issue is being discussed at the RSN here. Your thoughts would, of course, be welcome. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dell Schanze

There was an afd on this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell Schanze over two years ago, and I note you were equivocal back then. I'm wondering what you think now. The article looks to me like a hatchet job on the village idiot spun from low-grade local news stories. I'm wondering whether our tolerance for such stuff is lower now than it was. I don't want to rerun an afd if this is obviously going to get kept, so I hope you don't mind me using you as a weather vein. Would you vote to keep this? And regardless of where you'd come down, do you think it is a debate worth me beginning?--Scott Mac 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(butting in) a quick look at the refs sees two independent newspapers as sources, which suggests it will be kept or no consensus - the general notability guidelines seems to me to be where the 'tide' lies on these things. It doesn't qualify as WLP1E either, so I would think the probability of an AfD reaching a 'delete' conclusion are minimal at best, and if it does, then there will be heated discussion on process etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. The sourcing is particularly poor[11] . Most of the newspaper stories look like "point and laugh" local stories. Are village idiots intrinsically notable?--Scott Mac 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we have considerably less tolerance for such articles now, and I think an afd on it might well succeed. My own reasoning in such cases is the same as before: in order to be notable one must do something notable. The accumulation of minor curious details does not add up to notability. I would certainly say to delete. My own view in the previous afd was not actually equivocal: I thought it should be deleted, but did not want to press the point as a newcomer , seeing the views of other respected editors; it was a failure of self-confidence on my part, I hope pardonable as a beginner.

This is the stuff of tabloids, not of responsible newspapers., let alone encyclopedias. The way I look on it is congruent with BLP 1E and Do No Harm, but based on my own interpretation of both. I consider the usual current interpretation of BLP 1E extremely unfortunate and destructive to NPOV, in preventing the coverage of people significant in particular happenings: I would personally limit it to single discreditable events in the life of non-public individuals. But I would enforce it rather strictly within that sphere. Similarly, I don't apply do no harm to cases where significant publicity has already occurred, only to cases where we ourselves would really make a difference. My fundamental motivation is, that I feel it ethically obligatory to protect children and fools from the consequences of their unwitting actions. I word it as "feel", because it is not a rational argument, but an instinctive moral reaction, a desire not to be needlessly cruel.

I know that Scott considers things a little differently in his more extensive view of BLP; he comes here because he thinks this a case where our different views on might nonetheless yield the same result, and he is right. There is a core of human decency to be respected in what humans do, and I am sure that almost always he and I feel it alike--our disagreements are over some cases only, and should not be overemphasized . There are a few in Wikipedia who do not seem to feel it, and I think they misunderstand and overextend a good principle: the requirement to tell the truth is very great, and it applies without exception in all public affairs, but only in these. In patrolling, I come across those in need of protection, and I ask for oversight as readily as he would do.

The key consideration is not the quality of sourcing, which is sufficient if the material were worth including in the first place. Cas's view above that it depends on the sourcing is putting the cart before the horse. Not everything sourceable is suitable for Wikipedia .

But regardless of whether the article was justified, the most recent action, a speedy deletion by User:the Wordsmith, was not. The rationale was " ‎Significant violations of the biographies of living persons policy in nearly all versions" which I consider as unacceptable vague. If he thinks the community made a mistake, he should do it as Scott and I would do , and go back to the community and convince them of it. Shortcuts of this sort are an abuse of administrative power, and dealing with that is more important to Wikipedia than the fate of any one article. It is unfortunate when good people trying to do good, do it in such a way as to make their own actions censurable. Within the framework of Wikipedia this is a public action, and I think it must be dealt with. Were it not for the foolish decision of arb com protecting even the worst admin action when claimed to be justified by blp, I would summarily revert. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, DGG. I felt that the article was written non-neutrally in all versions (except for a few which seemed to be copyvios, so unsuitable for reverting to), which means that summary deletion was explicitly allowed under WP:BLPDEL, which states in part "Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard." I considered the article to be slanted, with the sourcing essentially showing every stupid thing he has done and not giving much actual biographical coverage. I have a good faith belief that my summary deletion was within the spirit of doing no harm. If you would like to take it to DRV, I welcome solicitation of further consensus. Pretty much everyone agrees that the article should not be on Wikipedia and is an embarassment, so I took swift action to do the right thing. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) It's allowed. It should not be. Arb com made a mistake to allow it, and if we admins took full advantage of the outer limits of what arb com lets us do, the result would be even greater chaos than if arb com did not exist. It is a mistake to a use as much power as one can get away with--it is better to not act in a way that people might disapprove, and take every potential case where they might disapprove to a community board. I can see speedying it if you came across it as a new article, as written to denigrate the subject, but I can not see doing it after a community decision to keep, and I take very seriously Caslber's view that it would be kept again--I hope that is wrong. From experience I do know that in terms of deleting it, taking unilateral action like this tends to have a Streisand Effect. there will likely now be multiple levels of debate, all calling attention to this man, and we will then indeed be doing harm. In a community this size, and so very open to public view, process matters. But DRV has a problem in dealing with wrong actions that lead to correct results, and I am reluctant to take such cases there, for fear of establishing bad precedents. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa. I just noticed the link go red. NPOV becomes a two-edged sword when most notable events mentioning a person are negative. I haven't studied the situation fully but I did note the words of those familiar with politics and public affairs in Utah. And I am mindful of the fact that there are editors who fail to take into account geographical or cultural issues when assessing notability. The only reason I mention the two-significant-references-in-independent-sources is because it is the closest thing we have to a grudging consensus in the (numerous) notability battles. I agree there is material not suitable - generally along the lines where the mere existence of an article amounts to distortion of encyclopedic information (particularly in the series of pederasty articles, but also mainly in medical articles) NB: DGG, you could argue that the idea of protecting children and fools is illogical (some biological species-driven impulse), but I think you'll agree part of it is supratentorial (medical slang for conscious/logical) in terms of leading by example WRT basic human dignity etc. Anyway, I wonder where this will lead.....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Several points. : 1/ an example of this is the "notable legal issues" heading in the article, which is the heading for such utterly trivial things as traffic stops, seatbelt violations, and for campaigning too near the polls during an election. I take this to indicate a negative tone that is indeed very troublesome. 2/ I'm not happy with the GNG, and I think that by now we decide as many afds using other criteria--BLP is one of the more conspicuous instances. I think it made sense when we didn't know what we doing otherwise, and is destined to fall as we think through what we actually do want to include. (and as technology makes it easier to find 2 such sources for almost anything). As for moral feelings, I am of course aware of the qy whether they are based on evolutionary biology, and in one sense they certainly are: Societies that do not protect children inevitable have no adults to continue survival of the group; societies that do not protect fools end up destroying all non-conformists and stagnating. I mentioned it as an exception i must make to my otherwise absolute view of the obligation to never censor-- while simultaneously recognizing that "protect the children" can lead to the most extreme and over-reaching censorship, as in the condemnation of Socrates for corrupting the youth. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, DGG, you really should archive this page. It takes forever for me to load, and won't render properly on my mobile phone. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for confirming my concerns about the article. I had very strong WP:NPF, NPOV, and TRIVIA concerns, which I was planning to take to BLPN. I was also going to report Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk · contribs) to ANI if he continued his edit-warring, sockpuppetry, etc. --Ronz (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking back at the article and the whole issue, and in light of Casliber's 2nd comment, I think that the simplest thing to be would be to let the article stay deleted, unless someone asks to restore it. We should have gotten there via AfD2, but the least damage now would be to let the matter rest. DGG ( talk ) 07:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you start by userfying it for me, so I can see what it looked like at deletion? I'm looking at pretty extensive non-trivial sources from multiple newspapers and TV, over a number of years (since 2001 fairly steady through today), and highly tempted to ask for full restoration. I don't care about the arrests, but the man is a self-made millionaire, and repeated candidate for office (including as we speak).[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] --GRuban (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is still in the Google cache, and will probably persist in some of the mirrors. But I cannot undelete an article that another admin has deleted under conditions such as these. You should ask him to mail you a copy, and if he will not, ask at Deletion Review or the BLP noticeboard. I checked previous versions, and every one of them has some of the BLP problems, including the very first. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Advice on to tag a jpg file related to Corporate Magic, Inc. (special events production company)

Earlier tonight, I saw an editor create Corporate Magic, Inc. (special events production company). I just checked his contributions thinking he might try to insert it in other files. Turns out he uploaded a file with "his permission" under his legal name called [[File:Cm logo.jpg]]. How would you tag the jpg file? Morenooso (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I redirected that article to the one on him, since the contents duplicated, and he himself is notable. As for the file, try listing it at files for deletion--this is an area of Wikipedia that I generally avoid. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Understood. And, you follow your general habit patterns which does not surprise me. My own pet peeve is COI. As Mark Twain supposedly said, "If you're famous, other people will write about you in due time." This guy doesn't need a Wikipedia article from what I saw at the website. He's just feeding his ego. --Morenooso (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious--which of my general habit patterns do you have in mind--it is important for me to know the reactions to what i do and how people perceive me. Some reactions are of course very explicit, but the implicit aspects, such as whatever it is that you are alluding to, can benefit from being the subject of conscious attention. If what you have in mind is that I avoid work with images, yes indeed, I do avoid it and intend to continue avoiding it, for the way people work on it here is too legalistic and rigid for me to be comfortable, and I cannot hope to impose my own style on others. If you men I will do whatever is possible to avoid deleting an article, yes, I will, subject to the reality that there is no possible remedy for about half of what is submitted: I think I've speedied about 10,000. If you mean I will try to find people and things notable if possible, yes, so I do--it gives the necessary balance for others making the opposite assumption, and I do not insist on my own judgment being superior or decisive--I see no reason why it should be either. If you mean I try to broker compromise when possible, I hope I do that; although some issues need to be resolved by controversy, we would do better to reserve that for the few that truly merit it, rather than fight about everything. I'd like to see not 100, but 10 AfDs a day, each of them argued from multiple viewpoints, and then used as patterns.01:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, avoidance of images was not one of my observations. We all have things we are good at. I seem to be a fair wiki-defender. I asked about that and here you truthfully answered. No problem if that is not your specialty.

You seem to have three great characteristics: 1) consistency in actions 2) no rush to judgment and 3) leniency. Your response to the AfD nomination of M. Christian is a case in point. Instead of playing Horatio at the bridge, you calmly explained your rationale here and on the AfD page. Me? If that had been an article I created, I'd be through the roof (and I now have two articles I've created within this week). No WP:OWN seems to exist on your part. Plus, others seem to come to you for advice. You're like the "the Shell answer man. And, yes you seem to look for WP:CONSENSUS while others are loosing their heads all around themselves. Do you cater? --Morenooso (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

the reason I was able to be relatively indifferent to M Christian is that I did not write the article. I merely declined to delete it. I do relatively little article writing on my own subject, because I get as upset as anybody else if people think what I write about it unimportant. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Boba Phat at AFD again

An AFD you participated in 6 months ago, is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boba_Phat_(2nd_nomination) Dream Focus 08:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I am letting you know because you participated in the thread the first time it was brought to the WP:ANI. Here are the URL and wikilink to the current discussion. [23] Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Speedy deletion Uighur house redux

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dave Favis-Mortlock

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dave Favis-Mortlock, you suggested that User:Dave Favis-Mortlock be moved to the mainspace. Would you make the necessary improvements to this userspace draft so that it may be restored to the mainspace? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Will you work on User:Dave Favis-Mortlock? If not, I will be renominating it for MfD. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Matt Armstrong-Ford

I noticed that on 21 April 2010 you removed the prod tag for the article Matt Armstrong-Ford, but the nominator (against policy) almost immediately replaced the tag. I have removed the prod tag again, and I have also documented that it has been contested, per WP:CONTESTED, by placing an "Oldprodfull" tag on the article's Talk page. I noticed that you did not document your objection by adding the tag to the talk page after you first removed the prod tag. WP:CONTESTED says that the editor who removes the tag should do this. I can see that you are a very senior editor, so I am asking if there is a reason why you do not follow this policy? Is it something that I should do after contesting a proposed deletion, or should I stop adding the "Oldprodfull" tag to the Talk page? Thank you for your time. Macpl (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

when it is obvious from the edit summary, I don't do anything further. My edit summary read "(refs are in G news , deprodded", and I added one of them when I removed the tag, as people ought to. As the notability is disputed, it's at afd, which is appropriate, and where people who know the subject will judge. I'd certainly advise anyone starting out here not to take shortcuts. It's inevitable that people do so later on, though perhaps not ideal. What's really essential is to provide some reason, and nobody should skip that part. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)