User talk:DGG/Archive 56 Sep. 2011

ARCHIVES

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

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

Wikipedia Loves Libraries[edit]

I was wondering if you could offer some sage advice here? We're still in the spitballing phase, and I wonder if you could point out work we could use to help local librarians understand the natural Wikipedia/Library connection. Your subpages seem a good start, but I'm thinking we'll want to construct a librarian entry point, with FAQ and ideas. Perhaps the folks over at GLAM would also have some input. What do you think? Feel free to answer there. BusterD (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

)

Discussions about citations for notable alumni[edit]

Dear DGG, you have always been a Dean to us occasional editors. Please enlighten me on an issue being discussed with another editor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muhandes#Citations_on_QES_page To roughly summarize the issue, he insists on citations for all alumni listed on a school page, such as this one QES, HK, even tho those same citations already appear on the alumni's bio pages. I cited MIT Alumni as example to show that as long as those citations appear on the people's bio pages, they would be considered verified. I thought the bio page would serve as hub to verify everything about that person. Please advise. Much obliged.--Kgwu24 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replied there in some detail. Nobody questions that everything must be sourceable, but this is not the same as saying everything must be explicitly sourced inline, or even in the same article. Such lists are mere summaries. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your eloquent response, as usual. It seems a trivial matter that the guy would hang on so hard-nosed. There is at least one kind of unintended consequence for having the citations on the school page. Since it's primarily visited by students, those who are not familiar with Wiki will misread that the citation is to support notability. Just imagine the implication -- someone winning a high school scholarship is considered to be notable.--Kgwu24 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People here often hang on to trivial matters with great determination. The way of working makes it easy for someone who is really determined to keep at it obsessively. This is relatively non-trivial compared to some of the things the most persistent fights have been about: the most recent is when to use hyphens { - ), as compared to en-dashes ( – ), -- even though most computer users cannot tell them apart on the screen. ( I generally use -- in comments, though I know it is not permitted in articles where I must use an en dash without spaces—like this. ) and whether or not spaces go before and after. Even with references, there is no agreement about whether they should always be required in-line (they are for FA), and the various styles of referencing (footnotes are not the only acceptable method, though some think they should be). Precisely because the matters are trivial one can give long arguments in each direction, none of which can be definitively refuted.

Your comment that the footnoting confuses referencing for notability is correct, but there are other reasons also. Excessively footnoted articles are hard to read; footnoted articles are extremely difficult to edit; the current Wikipedia methods of inserting footnotes are confusing to the extent that they keep people from contributing at all (I use ProveIt though I dislike parts of it); most important, it detracts from concentrating our attention on the really questionable material. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Hentai[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hentai. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear example of needless counter-productive provocation. I commented accordingly DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Alan Liefting[edit]

Please help me, this user is at it again trying to delete several pages. Geek2003 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you can, expect this to continuer even though most of the previous vbatch of nominations for deletion did not succeed. (not even no-consensus or merge, they were mostly just kept by consensus). You can expect every such article to be nominated. Unfortuantely, it is even possible that the ones which do not get deleted the first timeto be renominated until, by chance or exhaustion, they all are--though I hope the ed.will not be doing that. When someone, acting in good faith as this editor is doing, is truly convinced that certain material does not belong, they sometimes do get their way. The most important thing you can do is to add good references to these and all the similar articles. Articles with really good references are almost always kept without much trouble--articles with borderline non-3rd party references are a problem, as well they ought to be. Good referencingis important, and if the eds. work can get you or others to add references, it will have been a good thing for the encyclopedia. Don;t get angry at it, just do the necessary work, and probably he will realize. (You do not have to notify me; I try to look at all afds on topics where i have something to say) DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I am under the influence of a rather good Rosé wine vintered by Selaks so what I am about to say will have to be reviewed once I have less alcohol coursing through my circulatory system. DGG, thank you for your assumption that I am editing in good faith. You also give a good appraisal of the situation that we are dealing with. Geek2003, good move on your part to request the assistance from an inclusionist WP editor!! But I think there are rules about soliciting help for AfDs. ~~It my be illegal.~~ As for the inclisionist/deletionist continuum I make no secret of the fact (well I haven't now!!) that I am a deletionist when it comes to articles on products and commercial organisations. Editors need to be vigilant to prevent any insidious SPAM articles being created that do not fit in with the WP "landscape". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see my attitude towards promotionalism, look at my deletion log: about half my 12,000 deletionsare speedy G11s. As we both know, I totally disagree with you about the way to handle this material: product information is not spam; product advertising is. There will be some inherent promotional effect from our writing objectively about anything notable for being good or useful, but that's an inevitable byproduct.

I understand your concern about canvassing; it has arisen here before a number of times. My view is that people can see from my talk p & its archives that it does not particular good to canvass me if what you want is support, for I comment as I think fit in the particular circumstance, which is not always what is hoped for. Like AN/I, it can boomerang. I always give the best advice I can about how to meet the consensus whether or not I agree with it: surely you agree with me agree that what articles like these need most to be kept is unimpeachable third party substantial sources, something which is usually not as good as it ought to be. Anyway, as I said, I pay attention to all articles of this type to the extent I am able. And it is not canvassing to ask someone previously involved in an issue to return to it. And considering the >500 people who watch this page (Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched users), presumably including most editors who strongly disagree with me on anything major, informing me here will inform them also. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

May I make a Request for Comment (RfC) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art). Marshallsumter (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to give it a full discussion and made a suggest for how to proceed. Basically, you need to publish your analysis in some RS first, not use Wikipedia or Wikiversity as quasi-publication. In all sincerity, I hope you'll be able to establish it in the customary academic way. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Close Of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of power metal bands And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of speed metal bands[edit]

I am asking you to at the very least to wait out the full 7 days of the discussion of these discussions.

I feel that with the claim that a number of references do exist purportedly claiming the entrants as playing these genres may not be true as sources have not been produced to substantiate this claim.Curb Chain (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closes were totally obvious on the material presented. Myself, I can not tell the difference between these genres, and iI've almost never even heard of the bands. So its entirely an abstract argument to me; I would not have closed in this manner something about I had an opinion. I do know that the articles on the bands assign assign them to genres., normally on the basis of references. Since they do, the references are present. Collecting those with a specific genre into a list is then an obvious thing to do, as obvious as making a category. Everyone who commented on any of these article agreed. Iconsiderthat a valid snow closure. You yopurself came there asking only for better referencing,According to WP:BEFORE, that;s a justification for deletion only if you tried to find such, and failed. Again, I cannot see that you could have failed, since the genre references are in the articles in the bands. Now, opinion varies over whether these references need to be copied over. I think that in list articles they generally do not, some think they do; you're apparently among the, . So the solution is to copy them over from the articles if you want them explicitly referenced. Not only can it be done, but you can do it. You seem to have brought these AfDs to force other people to do that, and that's an illegitimate use of AfD. Since youe entire objection can be met by fixing the articles, and you I presume care enough about the subject to work on it, go and fix them. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think it was appropriate to snow close those discussions. You bring valid points, but I should not be excepted to find references if I chose not too. One way of looking at it is that I may have inappropriately nominated the articles for deletion, but snow closing such nominations were inappropriate as well.Curb Chain (talk)

I never insist on things like this. If your really want me to reopen I will, but what is it likely to accomplish? (Nobody forces you to find references, or even to move them, but if you choose not to fix, that's not a reason to delete, since any one of thousands of others can fix. ) DGG ( talk ) 13:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German collective guilt[edit]

I have done some work on this and so would like to look at the previous version. Please could you userfy it per your comment in the discussion. Warden (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. However, note that placing it back into the edit history of the current version has allowed another editor to revert to that deleted version, contrary to the consensus of the previous AFD. Please delete all those versions again and the edits which are now based on them. Warden (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- See below. This has become a total mess, and is now at AE: [1] Probably some other admin should decide, but my current view is the same as yours: that the only reasonable course is to delete the whole thing and start over, with some of the present and prospective editors removed from the issue. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

page deletion or not[edit]

I am trying to get National Republican Guard (Portugal) deleted so that another page (on the same subject) can eventually be moved to it. (There are currently no objections to the move [2], for the time being at least!)

Since I have apparently have chosen the wrong way to get it deleted, please advise me on the right way.

Thankyou! Mesoso2 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

after the 7 days provided for discussion, I shall make the move for you if I see no objections. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Ware Article[edit]

Thanks for the input on the draft User:Cmagha/John A. Ware; three of us are following up on some sourcing leads from a professor. We'll also give it a good going over for promo language. Your insights were very helpful.IndtAithir (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect ordinals[edit]

Hello. I would like to ask why you have deleted 33th Yukon general election? User:Robertgreer has recently searched for incorrect ordinals, and saw no need to delete such innocent spelling errors. Could you please undelete the page? And it could be categorized correctly. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not protected it, so nothing stops you from re-creating it, except I hope the feeling that it is not worth the trouble. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask who put it up for CSD? Because if it is a certain user, I may need to report him for harassment. 117Avenue (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My request for undeletion still stands, I would like the full edit history restored. 117Avenue (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metaplano[edit]

Can you take another look at the article you de-PRODed. If you ignore the linked web pages on which the word "metaplano" doesn't appear (all 3) and the books in Italian whose title doesn't contain "metaplano" then we're left with one Italian book using the word in it's title. That book doesn't give "metaplano" a capital "M" which suggests "metaplano" is an Italian word (rather than a name). Hence I don't see how the article establishes notability on the English Wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

afd would be the way to get it deleted, but I suggest first some help from someone who has expert knowledge of the subject, knowledge of Italian, or at least sufficient access to the references to read beyond the title. It's reckless to conclude what the contents of a book is or isn't on that basis alone What I do know of Italian is that they use upper case more sparingly than English. And from the considerably greater amount I know of title transcriptions in bibliographic records, some countries, including the US, lowercase everything in a title. It's a weird aberration started by Dewey that has become a tradition. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help[edit]

... With the Wendy Holden page, I appreciate it and thank you for your time taken to fix the page LiteratureWorm (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AE related to the German collective guilt AfD[edit]

Hi, I mention you here. Basically, I had the same thought as you did here, and now I'm the subject of an AE report by a long standing wiki-enemy of mine. The whole situation is/was very confusing and if you can help clarify it, that'd could help.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented, but part of comment was that it might be better for you to avoid working on the article, and leave it to those with no prior history on the general subject of Eastern Europe. I can see why this topic would be a flash point, but I think it has to be covered. I have no intention of editing it myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion's fine. I have no "deep" interest in the article and only made the edits there in response to the AfD. In response to your specific comment though [3] I do want to note that my intention was not to "endorse" that version fully (this is evidenced by my later comment on the talk page). Rather, it seems I was thinking along the same lines as you were here [4], specifically the statement that I do not think it was in fact OR, but rather an extremely non-neutral presentation that would need complete rewriting, which I agree with. When I restored the old version I was thinking the same thing; restore the old version but rewrite it. I began to edit it in order to neutralize it, as in here. The plan was to go through the article, cut out the POV stuff and get it to something which is both notable and neutral, but events - the restoration of the other version - took over, so I never had a chance to do that. Ideally I think a true NPOV version of the article would be something which would incorporate the best of the old version as well as the new (just not the dab page, please, the only purpose of that was to affect what Wikipedia mirrors do).

Boson's edits (and S. Lacrtia's) seem fine. The C. Warden version needs some serious expansion. I do think that I have something to contribute here, if only in discussion on the talk page, but, like I said, at the end of the day, this is just something I came across because of the AfD and do not really feel like wasting my time on if it's going to be a whole lotta trouble and provide an excuse for various parties to make a battleground out of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your good intentions. When a page needs radical edits, some of the intermediate stages may well be unintentionally unacceptable--in particular, it's tricky to revert only what needs reverting. All you now need to do is to say on the AE page that you plan no further involvement. I gave you a lead-in there to say it. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David, I am rather disappointed with your approach here. VM did nothing wrong by becoming involved here. Another editor tried to "win a dispute" by wikipoliticing, and you, by suggesting to VM that "it would be more peaceful if he went away" are, in fact, endorsing the battleground behavior carried out by that other editor. In effect you are saying that if editor X is harassed by editor Y, it is better for editor X to go away so no further conflict is created. By extension, you are encouraging further harassment and battleground mentality, because its very purpose is to achieve exactly that - scare away certain editors so that POV pushers, who cannot win in a content debate, have the articles to themselves (or at the very least prevent certain other editors from becoming involved in their improvement). I do not plan on becoming involved in this article, but I fully reserve the right do so whenever I feel like it, and if any trolls try to prevent me from editing this or any other article, I'd expect the community to back me up rather then to advising me to quietly go to a more quiet neighborhood. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I've given my position previously. Those previously involved in disputed areas should stay away from them, or at least from the articles in the area most likely to arouse strong feelings. I do not like figuring out who harassed whom--often there is some degree of blame on both sides, & I do not like to assign blame to people. Thus I generally stay away from AE and similar, and block as little as possible. I give advice based on my judgment of what is likely to happen, and what I think likely to happen is that when people continue too long in such areas, especially on the hot-button aspects, what will happen is rarely constructive. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I do prefer peace to justice. Justice, like truth, is beyond our capabilities. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Metaphysical Sciences[edit]

You're welcome to rewrite the page if you want, good luck with that woman who hated the subject matter as she'll attack the page as soon as you write it. I'm out of the picture now. Wiki is just too negative for me to deal with when it comes to articles. It was nice to see that at least there is one sane and level headed person here on wiki, you, who can look at things objectively. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalina Z (talk • contribs) 06:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#Key industries[edit]

Hi DGG. Do you have access to any publications that will be helpful at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#Key industries? I've rewritten the article at User:Mrwalis/Key Industries but am uncertain that it will pass another AfD. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot think of a simple way to get more good references except to ask them if they know of any. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article BMA Entertainment[edit]

Hi David, I note that BMA Entertainment has been deleted. IIRC, in May I added sources to demonstrate notability as part of the Hong Kong Recording Industry Alliance "Big Five", and perhaps de-prodded it. I can't remember whether it was still deficient on other grounds. Would you mind taking a look, please? It has a Chinese wiki article zh:種子博美娛樂. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was Alexf who deleted it, and, according to protocol, it's better if you ask him first. I did take a look at the article, & it seems a little promotional by our usual standards, which could be fixed by some cutting. I don't really think it should have a A7. I get really bothered by speedy or prod nominations for articles that are stable articles in one of the other Wikipedias. Sure, junk gets submitted there as well as here, sometimes simultaneous to both, but most of the time it's just that someone forgot to include the references from the original or used a Google translation that did not explain things clearly. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, thanks. – Fayenatic (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Center for Evidence Based Practice[edit]

Would you please undelete the page? I was in the process of working on it, adding more references, etc, to make it meet wikipedia standards, and I don't have it saved elsewhere!

Also, please provide some logical response to the comments I posted on the speedy deletion talk page, in response to why this article should not be deleted.

I appreciate your understanding as I work to improve this article.

Thanks.

Yurinator180 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of writing you a message about it on your talk page, which will explain the problems. If you think you can fix them, start over. Very little of what you have written is usable, for the reasons I give there. I also want to call WP:COI to your notice--I explain further on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response to my reply as to why it should not be deleted, and yes, I find this response much more understandable and acceptable. As a reviewer of medical journals myself, I understand the need for objectivity. And yes I agree with everything you said. I contacted you because you initially did not provide any explanation as to why you deleted the page, that is all. This gave me the impression that the article was being targeted for deletion prematurely or for nefarious reasons. But since you have provided a logical argument for this, I agree with your choice to delete the article, and it will not be rewritten. Take care.

Yurinator180 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion here is normally by at least two steps. The most rapid process, and the one used in this case, is called "Speedy deletion". Somebody --any editor at all --identifies an article as suitable for deletion, usually by checking our list of new particles (there are about 2000 of them a day!) Sometimes we do go too fast, but often it is clear from the first that there can not be a satisfactory article, and there is no point in waiting with the editor doing yet additional work that will not be accepted. The form notice is placed immediately after the deletion is recommended. I don't think these form notices are very good--they attempt to cover all situations and therefore give no specific help, but it is necessary to use some sort of automatically generated form, so the editor can be notified as soon as possible. An administrator then reviews the suggestions. Some admins just delete if it meets the standards for immediate deletion, but many of us try to say something specific also if it appears it will be helpful. I sometimes send fairly elaborate ones, as here, but it takes a while to write one, as I need to explain our policies in general, and discuss the specific problems of the article in question, and whenever possible offer some suggestion for how to proceed. Your message crossed mine. I welcome your suggestions for how we could do it better. We can only get these suggestions form people whose articles have run into problems. I do a lot of this sort of work, and I'll follow up anything that might be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions about citations for notable alumni[edit]

Dear DGG, you have always been a Dean to us occasional editors. Please enlighten me on an issue being discussed with another editor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muhandes#Citations_on_QES_page To roughly summarize the issue, he insists on citations for all alumni listed on a school page, such as this one QES, HK, even tho those same citations already appear on the alumni's bio pages. I cited MIT Alumni as example to show that as long as those citations appear on the people's bio pages, they would be considered verified. I thought the bio page would serve as hub to verify everything about that person. Please advise. Much obliged.--Kgwu24 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replied there in some detail. Nobody questions that everything must be sourceable, but this is not the same as saying everything must be explicitly sourced inline, or even in the same article. Such lists are mere summaries. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your eloquent response, as usual. It seems a trivial matter that the guy would hang on so hard-nosed. There is at least one kind of unintended consequence for having the citations on the school page. Since it's primarily visited by students, those who are not familiar with Wiki will misread that the citation is to support notability. Just imagine the implication -- someone winning a high school scholarship is considered to be notable.--Kgwu24 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People here often hang on to trivial matters with great determination. The way of working makes it easier, for someone who is really determined can keep at it obsessively. This is relatively non-trivial compared to some of the things the most persistent fights have been about: the most recent is when to use hyphens { - ), as compared to en-dashes ( – ), -- even though most computer users cannot tell them apart on the screen. ( I generally use -- in comments, though I know it is not permitted in articles where I must use an en dash without spaces—like this. ) and whether or not spaces go before and after. Even with references, there is no agreement about whether they should always be required in-line (they are for FA), and the various styles of referencing (footnotes are not the only acceptable method, though some think they should be). Precisely because the matters are trivial one can give long arguments in each direction, none of which can be definitively refuted.

Your comment that the footnoting confuses referencing for notability is correct, but there are other reasons also. Excessively footnoted articles are hard to read; footnoted articles are extremely difficult to edit; the current Wikipedia methods of inserting footnotes are confusing to the extent that they keep people from contributing at all (I use ProveIt though I dislike parts of it); most important, it detracts from concentrating our attention on the really questionable material. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I don't want to give the impression that there is conflict between us about the general matter of handling ELs--improper ELs are something we both consider it a priority to get rid of. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think first I do owe you an apology, when first looking through the contributions, I actually thought it was you ... there is considerable overlap in the articles both edit, and of the 'opposers' of XLinkBot you are one of the strongest. But things clearly did not match up (even though there were some points that made it likely, others made it very unlikely). I decided to wait and see whether the IP would screw up (which they did in the end).

It would be good to have a re-analysis of the reverts of XLinkBot. I've done an analysis of 30 MySpace reverts quite some time ago (1-2 years), and at that point, 29 of the reverts were 'good' ('superfluous links': MySpace of individuals or old members on band-pages, non-existing MySpaces, unrelated MySpaces, plain spam, fanpages, etc. etc), only one was a case where it was the actual MySpace of (IIRC) the band (though the official bandpage was on that page as well - I would describe that as 'I would not have reverted, but not added either'). I did a couple of months ago a quick-check of 10 YouTube reverts, and that contained 2 copyvios .. a significant concern. Yes, more and more YouTube become official, still way way more is either unsuitable in the first place, not official or even plain copyright violation, I do not believe there is a major shift in the percentage of official video's on YouTube.

Surely, there will be reverts of good links, but I think we need to see it in percentages of the total reverts on a domain (and if the percentage of reverts of good links, in relation to the badness of the other reverts, becomes too high, then indeed such domains should be removed from the list). If you put yourself to it, it is possible to find a lot of allowed YouTubes, Twitters, MySpaces, etc. etc. (see the edits by the IP that started this discussion). But I still believe that by far most of them, when added by 'new' users (who are not aware of our policies and guidelins), are not suitable. Of course, all should be personally analysed on one end, on the other side, reminding editors quickly that they have to take WP:EL/WP:NOT/WP:COPYRIGHT etc. into account is also important. And with 18 edits which add external links per minute (46 links added per minute) it is impossible to check them all by hand (and preferably in the first couple of minutes after addition). XLinkBot is extremely soft, tries to be friendly, especially on its first revert. And it does not get too often to AIV. One needs to 'push' it, and most of the editors that get to a level 3 or level 4 warning do go 'yell' at the bot first .. if only this IP would have done that after having been reverted 4-5 times, I might have noticed earlier and resolved it (I've now added a detection for this to the bot); we've had workarounds built-in ever since the very beginning of the bots that work this, most now also accessible to all admins on-wiki). This type of editors, editors who are continuing to add good links and are continuously reverted, are pretty, if not extremely, rare.

Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the same problems you do. I rework a lot of organization pages, and I remove youtube and the like from the EL section if there's a regular web page, just like I remove all the links to the internal pages of the main site. (Hey, can you think of an automated way of detecting that particular problem?) (What I see more of in the areas I work is valid Facebook pages than YouTube pages, but I avoid working in popular music and related areas, which I think is where YouTube is prominent). Certainly the percentage of bad links to such pages is on the order of 99%, but that 1% is still a substantial number. I recognize the need with our volume of material to have computer assisted tools for editing; I don't consider the problem is mainly with the bot--or other bots, but the editors who think like bots, or who completely trust them.

However, I admit that I have extended good faith a number of times when it hasn't been present and other people would have been more skeptical; I prefer it to the opposite. Incidentally, I have carelessly edited a few times when logged out , but I think I have always asked for oversight. I don't do POINTY things, but I will sometimes defend those who do if I think the point is important. I know I am working in some areas fairly near the limits, and so I try to be extra careful not to go beyond them. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That 1% is about the amount I guess that gets reverted wrongly on that type of links. I do agree, of those editors in that 1% some will be bitten (what, of all the reverts, good or bad, some will be bitten by a friendly remark that their link is not appropriate), and that is an issue, but also a small part of editors is bitten when you leave a (non-bot) personalised message on their talkpage. I do that sometimes, and I do still get yelled at, or blindly reverted, or editors just never return. I know, c'est le ton qui fait la chanson (sorry, don't have a reference for this quote), but sometimes that 'ton' does not even make a difference.

You said somewhere, that you manage to convert promotional editors .. you actually have to group them. You have the promotional editors who are here to promote a person, a company, or an organisation - editors who are often specialists in an area and would be an asset to Wikipedia when converted - you have the 'promotional fans' - who only care about their subject and putting them in the best possible light, they don't care being converted and doing something else - you have the SEO's - who are only out for money, they edit what they get paid for (and often, also their own company when they are here anyway) - and true spammers (sildenafil, tramadol, muscle enhancers ...), they only care to have their links here. Every converted specialist is one, and that should certainly be an attempt. But also of those, if you approach them with silk gloves and hugs and kisses, some will be bitten, while a friendly remark does also convert editors sometimes (I do see the 'I did not know that, I'll take more care in the future' messages).

One of the issues is the IP or new editor, who is boosting with activity, and picks up the policies and guidelines really fast. Those editors should be made exempt from XLinkBot (whitelisted) as soon as possible, but they are difficult to detect in the plethora of edits. XLinkBot now alerts me of editors who have more than 9 messages from XLinkBot, either way, such editors need to be looked at (either they are genuine editors and should be whitelisted, or they are slow spammers and should be blocked for a bit of time to actually get the message). Maybe the note "Due to the nature of what the bot does, it will occasionally revert additions which may have been appropriate. As an RC patroller you are always required to make sure vandalism is obvious and uncontroversial, please do not revert someone who reverts or 'undoes' an XLinkBot edit based solely on the bot reverting the addition originally." on User:XLinkBot's userpage should be strenghtened and expanded, and be linked from the AIV-reports the bot produces (see IPuser-reportstring and user-reportstring in User:XLinkBot/Settings, there also the messages the bot leaves can be adapted in 'real time' (settings are loaded before every revert; feel free to adapt if necessary, please do check if the messages it actually leaves are formatted properly, they are concatenated in a bit complex way). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ELs[edit]