User talk:DGG/Archive 14 Mar. 2008

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

User:DGG/sandboxuserified2

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article User:DGG/sandboxuserified2, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at [[Talk:User:DGG/sandboxuserified2|its talk page]]. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Subbanna Ekkundi, Venkanna H. Naik, Mangesh V. Nadkarni, D. C. Pavate, Chittal brothers

Do you know why Wikipedia has decided to delete this? He is as good as other poets who earned Akedemy award.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It has not been deleted--it has been listed for possible for deletion, and the discussion is at [1]. The discussion will continue for 4 or 5 more days. I fixed up the article based on an available source. What you need now is documentation of the awards. Put it in the article, and say so at the discussion.DGG (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. To be honest with you, I don’t want to become a Wikipedia editor because I do not have time to read all those. I use here dirty tricks to accomplish. Someone had in mind to write articles about Ekkundi, Nadkarni …and I'm trying to help them. We have almost accomplished them with the little knowledge I have about Wikipedia editing. Who has time to go through all those rules of editing? It’s a lot to read.

We expect Wikipedia administrators to fix the editing problems to fit into Wikipedia standards. (The way you helped me – Not every administrators are like you – They reply in short without much help.). Also we do not have the resources to get the facts from Google scholars and libraries etc.

Your help is very well appreciated. If you have time, could you help us to fix our article on Venakkana H. Naik? Do you find any items on him on Google etc. to convince Wikipedia? It has been beyond my abilities to search documents to support poor Venkanna of 1879-1929. He should have lived in the 21st century to have him on Wikipedia!!!

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I give up the artcle on Venkanna H. Naik because I do not have any thing else left to satisfy Wikipedia. I thought of helping Venaknna as he helped others. I should not have worked on Venkanna;I hit a dead-end. Please discuss this with Wikipedia.

I want to remind you and the Wikipedia - Trust is very important and that is what Wikipedia says also (Read it - It's somewhere in the pillars..).

Now coming back to Subbanna Ekkundi your favourite subject - You wrore or someone wrote that

Ubhaya Bharati Subhadra are Ekkundi's contributions. I donot remember them. May be I'm loosing my memoreis. I will check that one for you.

Someone was asking to supply ISBN for Ekkundi's books. He/she did not ask for other article that I wrote here on Wikipedia. How do you account for such differences on Wikipedia? Thanks. You are great! I appreciate your help so far and that is why I'm writing to you. --Tangi-tamma (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for specialised material we rely on people like you, with specialised knowledge of t he subject, and if you do not do the work, there will not necessarily be anyone else in a position to do it for you. Everything I did is based on the encyclopedia you mentioned--but I first had to find the right page--you'd cited the general article on Kannada elegies, which did not mention him. I'll look for isbns, but older Indian works do not always have them. DGG (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with you and the Wikipedia. Yes, the writer who initiates the writeup should provide the data, but at the same time the administrators should provide help to edit.

1. About Subbanna Ekkundi:

I will try to get additional data in a day or two from my sources. I know several of Ekkundi's students.

2. About Venkanna Naik:

It is getting difficult to get further documents to support article on Venkanna. So far, I have furnished a) His B.A, M.A certificates from Cambridge and also his Bar-at-law from Lincoln's Inn on Wikipedia.

I have here 7 pages writeup in Kannada about Venkanna that was written by a friend of him (SAPA Gaonkar (redlink on Uttar Kannada). If you suggest, I will upload it on Wikipedia.

A long ago, primary school textbooks in Karnataka depicted about Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Venkanna as the first few Barristers of India. Read about Muhammad Ali Jinnah on Wikipedia as the 1stBarrister from Lincoln's Inn. It will be impossible for me to get prints of the textbooks.

Venkanna is also supposed to be the 1st or the 2nd college graduate of Nadavara community which claims now that it has more than 99% literacy rate (college graduates). Thanks a lot for your help.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

please understand that what is wanted is not documentation of his existence or degrees; what is needed is documentation that he is considered notable, from published sources--books or magazines discussing him. You dont necessarily need a scan, just a reference to where the information was published, and a quote of the key sentences (in english translation). A quotation fro mtextbooks talking about him will do very nicely. DGG (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The textbook dates back to 1960s by Bombay-Karnataka school administration;I'm sure it is out of print & will be difficult to get it from India. Students who used that textbook told me about it. Now it is not the same curricula in Karnataka.

Who will do the translation? I cannot. Do you know any administrator of Wikipedia who knows good Kannada and English? The author who published is a redlink on wikipedia.

Thanks for your input.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

At least try to figure out exactly what the book is, but "people told me that" is not really all that much in the way of evidence. If you can get a quote, put in whatever you have. & do the best translation you can. DGG (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was primary 4th or 5th grader textbook. The summary of the article by SAPA Gaonkar a redlink on Uttar Kannada is almost the same as what I wrote about in Venkanna H. Naik's on Wikipedia.

"Destiny hastened to take him on another path of progress unknown to us. Had it not been destiny’s cruel blow, which snatched away Venkanna at his young age from the midst of Nadavara and the people of Bijapur, Karnataka and Dharwar districts, it would have been remarkable to write who he was.

V. H. Naik’s contributions as a commissioner of Bijapur district and Dharwar districts are remarkable. He instigated several new plans to boost up the living standards of the people of Bijapur district who were economically and socially backward. In remembrance, after his death, people of Bijpur built his statue outside of Bijapur district's office. "

SAPA gaaonkar's article also says that V H Naik had internship experience as Dy. Commissioner of Scotland and other places in the U.K prior to returning to India. Is it ture? I have no idea.

There is no point in translating that 7 pages. I donot have anyone who could translate it for us. I believe the outcome would remain the same by Wikipedia. I respect Wikipedia's decision when I'm unable to give evidences. Thanks for your input. Tangi-tamma (talk) 12:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Tangi-tamma (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The amount you have translated is enough--you are right that there is no need to translate the whole 7 pages, just enough to say how famous he is. But what is needed to to say exactly what the title and author and date of publication is. I'll touch up the article on Naik as best I can; the one on Venkanna will almost certainly be kept. DGG (talk)

I will follow what you said. We tried our best and there is nothing to feel bad if it does not work. We have to follow the rules of Wikipedia.

I got a good picture of Mangesh V. Nadkarni and I will load it on Wikipedia. Thanks DGG.

--Tangi-tamma (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

CHRIS COHEN FROM AARON ARTICLE

HI DGG, how are you? I became very sad when I read your comment on my talk page. You said that you do not agree with the info that I added on the article. I dont kwnow what to tell you, really.

But I am going to go over this again one more time, for the sake of the Wikepedias readers, not for writters and not for the admins. Please, read my recent comment on the Discuss page of the Aaron article.

In 1997 the Cohen Modal Haplogroup was announced by Dr Karl. Two years later he published another article on Nature:

"It was characterized Y-Chromossome-specif variation at six micro-satellites (repeats of short nucleode sequences) as a 'Unique-Event Polymorphism' in a sample of new 306 male jews from Israel, Canada, EUA, and United Kingdom. It was found 112 different compound haplotypes out of this 306 jews testes. Despite extensive diversity among Israelites (jews), a single (01) haplotype (Cohen Unique-Event Polymorphism) was found and it is strikingly frequent in both Ashenazic and Sephardic (J1,J2). It is useful to define a Cohen Modal Cluster of related chromosomes as the Cohen modal haplotype and 'all of its one-mutation neighbours at the microsatellite loci', wich 'all share the same Cohen' Unique-Event Pholymorphism (UEP). The 95% confidence interval places the origin of priestly Y-Chromossomes sometime during or shortly before the first Temple period in Jewish history (2,100-3,250)."

Now, 3,300 years, for only one-mutation neighbours at the microsatellite loci' is plausible, right? Or it is not?

Please, talk to me! See ya

Chris--Chris Cohen / Jornalist / President of Jornal Goyaz, founded in 1884, with 124 years on brazilian market. / President of the Brazilian Association of Cohanim. (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The references you give are now 8 and 10 years old, and there has been some more detailed work done during the interval. Historically, 2100-3250 bp is a very wide period indeed, for it goes from the first through the second temple by any of the chronologies. Further discussion goes on the article talk page, please. DGG (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting copy of deleted page

A page which I had done considerable work on was speedied, and my good faith request to the deleting administrator has not been answered, probably because that admin is on an extended wikibreak. Now the article in question (Eden (nightclub)) has been recreated, however, I believe that working on the deleted copy would give a better result than the newly created version (which stands in danger of being deleted also, see deletion log). __meco (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Sinatra

I noticed you retagged Dr. David G. Williams as spam. Should the same be done for the creator's other article: Stephen Sinatra? Also, nice to work with you again. :) -WarthogDemon 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

a much more substantial subject--apparently the author of some books, including some actually published by 2 major publishers. I tagged it for "tone" but i dont think it's a speedy as spam. I suggest either a careful trim. If you think that's not sufficient, try afd for this one, but ifthe books were reviewed, he'd probably hold up as an author, though not a scientist. DGG (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reminding me. Haven't been on the wiki in a long time (one year, to be exact), so I'm a bit rusty on my wikipedia policies.--TBC!?! 22:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion tagging question

Hello. What is the proper procedure for tagging an article where someone moved either their user talk page, or their user page, into article namespace? There's no obvious CSD to cover that, although there is for the reverse. Do I PROD and wait five days for what looks to be clearly speedy deletion-worthy? Or manually use db-reason and list reason as invalid talk page move or similar? Or something else? I run across this situation every now and then during vandalism runs, and it would be good to know if there is an "official" resolution path. A current article that is a moved talk page is Skyeler Sudia. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

in this case, all she seems to have moved is the welcome message--I assume it was confusion--ask her if it was a mistake, and then place a db-author or db-test on it. The case is different when it seems a deliberate attempt to insert an autobiography--then I use A7. DGG (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I restored their talk page over the move redirect, posted a new message about the original move and restoration there, and flagged the remaining article with db-test. That looks like it should do the trick. Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Accessing a deleted article

I saw your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International development #UNOmbud about copying a deleted article to userspace. Could I ask you to do this for the Hexayurt article? It was deleted for non-notability, but is mentioned in an NY times article (though incorrectly cited), so I'd like to try working on the article. Many thanks --Chriswaterguy talk 07:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Morning]

Good morning DGG, I currently have a situation where two editors have been creating new articles with copyrighted material and the addition of copyrighted material and images to existing pieces. Neither editor has responded to numerous requests to correct this problem. Though I do not believe their edits are done in bad faith, one good make a full’s day work moving from site to site cleaning up the problem. Could you look into this here [2] and here [3] moreover, advice best solution to this situation. Thanks for your help. Shoessss |  Chat  11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion tagging question

Hello. What is the proper procedure for tagging an article where someone moved either their user talk page, or their user page, into article namespace? There's no obvious CSD to cover that, although there is for the reverse. Do I PROD and wait five days for what looks to be clearly speedy deletion-worthy? Or manually use db-reason and list reason as invalid talk page move or similar? Or something else? I run across this situation every now and then during vandalism runs, and it would be good to know if there is an "official" resolution path. A current article that is a moved talk page is Skyeler Sudia. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

in this case, all she seems to have moved is the welcome message--I assume it was confusion--ask her if it was a mistake, and then place a db-author or db-test on it. The case is different when it seems a deliberate attempt to insert an autobiography--then I use A7. DGG (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I restored their talk page over the move redirect, posted a new message about the original move and restoration there, and flagged the remaining article with db-test. That looks like it should do the trick. Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Notable at first sight" / Prod

re: your comment here, I was quoting what the declining admin said, nothing else. That was his/her comment on why the speedy was declined. If that's not what you meant, then I'm confusled.

also re: this note, I had looked for sources and didn't find the awards. My apologies. I see you've had fun with my PRODs, enjoy. I didn't know car models were inherently notable and I do believe that consensus *may* be changing. If I find the past AfDs, I may take the Hyundai there. I'll give you a courtesy heads up if I do though since I know you'll want to weigh in. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry if I sounded snappy about the prods. My apologies. For car models, I agree trivial variations aren't notable and should be combined, and in those cases I propose a merge. But the one discussed above seemed to be a new one entirely DGG (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

nope, you didn't sound snappy or at least in my thesis-raddled brain, I didn't notice :) but thanks for the concern. I'm doing some further digging on the model, you may be right. You and I disagree at times, but as I said once before I usually learn from your input, so I consider it a win-win. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Leo J. Meyer

Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. Mrprada911 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it appropriate for the encyclopedia. Having been one of three hundred and three men who have been served in combat as infantrymen in three wars is not all that notable, given no special individual accomplishment in any of them. DGG (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

ARTICLE DELETED

I don't know if this is where we ask questions; so let me know if this is not the place and please direct me to where else I should go. I saw that the article on Real Life Ministries was deleted. I would like to know why. I had added verifiable information and in parentheses stated where the information can be found. Someone else was deleting whole paragraphs that were verifiable, then it was deleted entirely. Please let me know how it can be written in a way that it can stay on Wikipedia. Thank you.

I restored a clean version. I'll watch it. Please add some references to newspaper & magazine articles about the church. DGG (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: No worries. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryoung122.

The discussion of Robert Young's block has been brought up again at the bottom of Bart Versieck's talk's page. As well as a bit on Carcharoth's talk. I recall you being somewhat involved. Neal (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC).

Student union AFDs

You have some good comments on the AFD pages. I really do think student union's are notable. Thanks for your hard work. You can reply on my talk page. :) Thanks. GreenJoe 14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO each and every one of them has done something notable at some point. The problem is with finding reliable sources to back it up for each SU article that exists. And of course finding out what it is that they've done that is notable when you've never attending the school. There are a lot of these articles now, as it should be. GreenJoe 18:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I could use a hand with Concordia Student Union. A CSD tag has been placed on it. GreenJoe 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

the ed. involved has quite a record of erroneous speedies; i declined 1 or 2 others of his at the same time& I think any other admin would have declined them also. But it will be another difficult afd. DGG (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he'll afd it. He just seemed to be on a speedy spree, but I could be wrong. GreenJoe 03:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the WikiProject idea is going over very well. I'm not sure how we can settle the question of notability. GreenJoe 19:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Research

Here's what I've found so far:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. International Union of Students - It has quite an extensive reference list.
6. [8]
7. [9]
8. [10] - This one is extremely extensive.
9. [11]
10. [12]
11. [13]
12. [14]
13. [15]

Reply on my talk page. Perhaps you and I can Co-Author an essay we can use in AFD discussions on why the unions are notable. -- GreenJoe 17:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Or start a new WikiProject just for students' unions. I don't necessarily disagree with the notion on here of notability, but I think each union -has- done something notable at one point or another, but that requires a lot more research than you and I could do alone. GreenJoe 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I created a proposal for a new project. GreenJoe 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

GreenJoe has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Article Washington University Student Union

Hello DGG, since you have been involved in this debate, you may want to look here: Talk:Washington_University_in_St._Louis#Student_Union_merge_proposal. I am concerned that these articles are being removed out of personal ideolgies and without proper debate/concensus. Many thanks, --Lmbstl (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help

Thank you for the hints you dropped on my talkpage. I'm going to take a break form editing for a bit and find out a bit more about Wikipedia- I'm doing more harm than good at the moment. Thanks again :) AlmightyClam 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Librarian help

I am trying to track down publication information on the book pictured at [16] which I believe is related to

Margaret L. Lial, John Hornsby, Terry McGinnis, Beginning Algebra, Volume II, Addison Wesley, (ISBN-13: 9780321127112 ???), February 2003

and apppears to be a special "Custom Edition for Middlesex Community College" if you blow up the image of the cover. Can you find out any more for me? Thanks. --Filll (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As I think you know for these books, the publishers let the teachers who are going to use it select what chapters to include in what order, and various other customizations about the problem sets--they can even add their own. This has the advantage that the teachers or the department, who usually doesn't use all of a book anyway, and generally doesn't like any one textbook totally, can suit themselves; the publisher gets the benefit of limiting the market for resale of used books. the only place it will be available is the college bookstore, in this case [17] . that puts the discounters out of the loop also. If Mahler wants a WP article, he's president of the 2 yr college math association, so he'd probably qualify. The publishers will do it for even a single class--they have the whole thing automated. As for the book itself, Lial's series of textbooks seems widely used, cf. Google and [18] , so she's probably notable also. For an introduction to the customization process for this publisher, see [19] Any more help, I'd need to know the context? Sometimes the tables of contents are on line, but the books does not seem to be being used this term, so if you want to know just what is in this one, why not email the instructor?DGG (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah I did not know anything about that. But I knew you would. The reason I am interested is that we have used an example with an Olympic swimming pool in our homeopathy article (well User: Wikidudeman did but he is disgusted with WP and the article now so I am not bothering him with this). I realized that the swimming pool example actually has a mistake in it since it does not address the probability of consuming at least one molecule of the active material. And so I figured out how to introduce probability into the example, and people jumped on us for WP:OR. So I have been tracking down homeopathic examples that use swimming pools of various kinds to use as possible references :[20]. Then I realized that the example Wikidudeman used comes, almost verbatim, out of a problem in that textbook, which you can find here. So if I am going to use the textbook as a reference, I wanted to have the ISBN number and other particulars. Unfortunately, the example is incorrect (well it cannot be that advanced since it is for high school students, so they are allowed to take some shortcuts I guess), but I hope that we will do it correctly since we are Wikipedia. Does that make sense?--Filll (talk) 00:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC) I will have to correct this slightly--I got the wrong college: instead of the correct Middlesex Community College in Massachusetts, I had Middlesex Country College in NJ--automatically picking a school I actually know of. But my guess is that the problem is fairly standard, and is likely to appear in numerous books of that series. But be careful of using nonobvious arithmetic in your argument. we dont need another long detour to WP:OR. Maybe you can find a textbook that does it right. DGG (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

reminder

Encyclopedia Dramatica is up for review again.--91.121.88.13 (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)I've been there already, twice. Looks like consensus is slowly moving away from the approach that says, if we dont talk about our enemies they will disappear. DGG (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedian random page patrollers DRV

I'm not sure if you realized, but you !voted twice [21] [22] on this DRV. Notifying you here to give you a chance to correct yourself before someone crosses one of them out. VegaDark (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks, fixed it. DGG (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Jan Goggans

I can't find an assertion of importance in the article Jan Goggans. As far as I can tell, it just says the subject is a professor with academic credentials. What am I missing? Michael Slone (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That';s an assertion of notability, though not enough to pass AfD. I just went to the trouble of checking the record,and filled in what I could find. Looking at it, it's clearly going to be inadequate, and so I nominated it for prod. Given that it was added some time ago, by an anon, that will get the article deleted from here quickly enough. I prefer not to cut corners when there's any possibility.DGG (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Just to clarify, I had been under the impression that (from reading WP:PROF) that an assertion that a person is a professor with academic credentials is not an assertion of that person's notability. My ultimate goal here is not to ensure the article's deletion, but to make sure it's clear whether the article is a stub with potential or a stub without potential. Perhaps it's better to use {{notability}} in such cases. Michael Slone (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Typically people find enough to justify an afd if they look hard enough; often they dont look hard enough, at least at first, so I dont like to speedy delete without doing at least a minimal check. If i think there's a good chance i put on the notability tag, and if not a prod, and save speedy for when I'm sure there's nothing. deciding whether a stub has at least some possible potential cannot always be done without actually looking for material. Personally, I think prod is a good choice for a lot of things when in doubt, and then someone else can do a final check after the 5 days. thanks for following up with me on this. DGG (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(the PROD expired , & the article was, properly, deleted)DGG (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Human Genetic History draft and vote

I created a draft version of WikiProject Human Genetic History; feel free to go to it and flesh it out. Also, given that there has been some comments about starting a task force inside of an existing WikiProject vs. a full-blown project, I've started an informal poll on the WikiProject proposal page. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

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

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of New Taiwanese Literature

An article that you have been involved in editing, New Taiwanese Literature, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Taiwanese Literature. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alenty

User DGG I know you declined CSD, but the article has no secondary sources just blog links about the company, so I nominated it for AFD for lack of notability per WP:Notability.

I put the template on the article and created the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alenty page, but I cannot find the article reference in the log Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_4#Alenty as if the record and the link to the discussion page was not created. Can you please advice. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I figured it out. I am new to nominating, always being nominated..:) Also the author of the article was Spamming external links all over like to 5 other articles. And adding article content text with no references but just external link. Igor Berger (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

afd is the way to do it, thanks for letting me know.DGG (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also been helping the user a bit letting him know about who is who in relationship to his field on Wikipedia. The guy seems very smart and knowledgable about social media statistics analysis, which is what the company is about. DGG you did a very good call not CSD it, we do not want to bite newbies, but teach them about Wikipedia policy so they stick around and help to edit the project. We need smart and knowledgable editors. I hope he gets to bring his article to main space, but if not he can have it userfied and he can stick around and keep building it and other related articles. What is not notable today may be notable tomorrow. Thanks again, Igor Berger (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the advice and tips. I was wondering if you would support me to become an administrator. I am relatively new here but I have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia and would love the opportunity to become an administrator. LAZZO (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

the first step is to become an active contributor to articles, as you have started doing ; the second is to join in discussion on article talk pages to lean how we talk about things here, and then to engage in some of the WP:MAINT activities; After that you should start learning policy and discussing at WP:AFD and policy talk pages. Avoid trouble, and don't do anything peculiar. Then ask me in three or four months to take a look at how you've been doing. DGG (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you transwiki Chris Vaughn to my user space?

Noticed the offer on your userpage. Can you see if this is the noted poker journalist? q.v. Sorel Mizzi -- Kendrick7^talk 06:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The deleted article is about a professional wrestler. Just write the article on the journalist; & put a note on the talk page that its a different person than the deleted article. DGG (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiCommonSense

I like to invite you to add [[Category:WikiCommonSense]] on your user page. You open-minded work on Wikipedia is WikiCommonSense. Igor Berger (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

David, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns about my candidacy. Unfortunately very few of the opposes gave me advice on points I should improve upon (bar the examples of incivility), and I ask you now, very humbly, to visit my talkpage, should you have any concerns about any of my actions here.
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One link at a time

Hi.

I noticed you joined up as a member of the Lists of basic topics WikiProject.

I have a couple requests for you...

As you browse/edit Wikipedia, please be on the lookout for links you can add to the lists of basic topics (and each time you find one, add it to the appropriate list). The ones that need the most work are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics.

Help build the set by adding or completing lists. Set a personal quota (build or complete one list per month, or per week, or per whatever time period you think you can handle), and keep up with your quota. These lists take from 3 hours to 8 hours each to complete, even if you know nothing about the subject to begin with. (The basic topics of a subject are pretty easy to identify). Even partial lists are useful for study and navigation, so don't be shy. Others can pick up where you've left off.

Links add up, so even if you add one link at a time, here and there, it will help. Please acquire the habit. The more people we get involved with this, the sooner the project will reach its intended scope.

The Transhumanist 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

MFD closure

I replied on my talk page. Regards, — Κaiba 03:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC) and I followed up there. DGG (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

More information at User_talk:Zscout370#Previous_closure_at_DRV, I'll leave a note on Kaiba's page too. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I commented there to keep things centralized. I gather there was also some talk on chat about it, and I'd think it advisable to keep things on-wiki. DGG (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I summarized the chat on-wiki, as is the normal practice for maintaining transparency. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing I noticed (also by reading your user page) is that it seems that you're not really very happy with wikis at all. You always stay away from the wiki-page and use the discussion page instead, you say. :-/ Am I reading correctly? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

could you explain further, I do not really understand, but, iIf you mean that I think major changes should be discussed first, yes I do mean to say that; if you mean do I disapprove of BRD when used to disrupt pages and remove content, yes, I disapprove of that. Wikis are a means of collaboration for contributing and editing content. When the methods are used destructively, they are being used wrongly. DGG (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If people don't wiki-edit at all, then what's the point of using a wiki? ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

With a wiki you can add material to an article, and i can add more, without any complicated need to check pages in an out or use complicated collaboration software. I've used a variety of them, and I hate them all. though this one does not avoid edit conflicts, and is therefore deficient in a major aspect--it should at least warn you before you try to save, not after,like gmail does--the simplicity is worth it. It is flexible in the changes it produces, which is good. The flexibility can be exploited to make major changes without agreement; this can still work if people are going in the same direction in a cooperative spirit. But it also permits people to be non-cooperative and try to push in contradictory ways. One person shoving is considered by most humans as license to shove back, and we know where that gets us. At best it gets into a shoving match, with victory to the guy who can get more people to shove with him. This can still work if people are friendly about it. But most humans aren't intrinsically. I know my personal reaction is to get extremely angry at the second shove, & the way I deal with it is to work on something else. the biggest bully usually wins, unless he resorts to tactics which bring on the authorities, and someone calls for them. After they block the bully for 24 hours, or even 6 months, everyone return with more friends. It's a tested way of organization, if what you want to do is organize gang fights. The Marxist dialectic was not a programme for peaceful change. DGG (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In other news, more on topic for the section header: I think we've managed to catch Zscout in the crossfire between us. We clearly have very different views of what correct MFD procedure is, and we're going to need to talk if we don't want to cause more collateral damage. --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Cadillac Bus

Do we really need to PROD this article, or can it be speedy deleted? The article is nonsense - it looks to be a screen capture (complete with search box and everything else that a mediawiki page has) of the Cadillac Escalade article with a few words changed. There is no such thing as a Cadillac bus. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 12:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was obvious it had been copied, but I had not found the Escalade page. We cannot speedy-delete hoaxes unless they are so self-contradictory as to be nonsense. This is too complicated for that; Prod should work perfectly well. DGG (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Chromosomal Aaron

I noticed you deleted part of my objections under Y Chromosomal Aaron. 1) Rabbi Akiba was a convert or son of a convert...commonly known and source was listed...thus, no validity to delete; 2) The Siddur is a post 2nd Temple compilation, as referenced even on Wikipedia...thus, no validity to delete; 3) The distribution of the Siddur among all Jewish communities does not prove that it dates to the 2nd Temple period, as is argued to prove the CMH, thus, this objection applies the logically analogous reasoning to the J1 CMH. This is the point of objections, is it not...or do you claim that the Siddur was also from the 2nd Temple period and why it is found among all Jewish communities? regards, Hkp-Avniel Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkp-avniel (talk • contribs) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry if I did not explain fully enough. sure, there are many traditions about Akiba; one is that he was a convert--but he was not a Cohen, so its irrelevant regardless of sourcing. The history of the prayerbook I know less about, and I see no reason no doubt your summary, but the siddur is not the Y chromosome. We have enough problems dealing with the biology in an article about the biology. I hold to my edits. DGG (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Preferred alternative (from my talk page)

'We' referred to the WikiProject; those of us who were already discussing writing these lists. I oppose any idea of us 'owning' the articles, and that is why I support AfD, that allows the community as a whole to discuss the matter rather than just keeping it 'in house', as one editor suggested, effectively giving the project complete control of D&D articles, which I do not support. I favoured doing it this way around, as that way, we could keep as many of the articles on the monsters themselves as possible, and those that we do not keep have been determined unkeepable by consensus, rather than them simply being redirected without any specific discussion regarding that article. People would resent the mass redirects (as happened with TV episodes) and at least this way we can be assured we do have proper consensus. In any case, we won't be merging them as such; the lists will contain no more than a few sentence fragments per monster, rather than the huge articles we have at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also note that I most certainly do not support a merge over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons)- why should the D&D incarnation of the beast deserve a mention over any other? No third party sources have mentioned it... J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

NIPCC Merger?

Since you voted at the AfD, I wondered if you were aware of what was going on since the AfD closed. I think Raul's actions are pretty odd, but perhaps it's me... Best. --Childhood's End (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thx for saving articles

Hey thanks for saving all those articles Mhsb marked for speedy, most were tagged right after being created, the authors didnt even had a change to expand them. :) Acer (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

changing db-spam for prod

Why did you replace the spam tag on this advert for a PROD? it's an advert for a web-company. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

replied at the AfD. Prod would have done the job of getting it deleted easily enough. DGG (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Sorry, I was just trying to help. --Mhsb (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of redirects

For the redirects you mentioned on my talk page nothing was merged, so there is no history to worry about. There is no reason not to delete them. The redirects in their current forms make no sense. Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC) -- thanks for the explanation. I just now deleted them. DGG (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Guerra C. N. Freitas

Saw your comment on the talk page for this one. The first version was deleted as a copyvio and as far as I can see this version is almost identical. – ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Then just find the page again -- it might be http://www.sharecircle.org/edirector.html and tag it for deletion as copyvio. I should have checked myself. DGG (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. – ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC) ; and I just deleted it. DGG (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of G-Log

An article that you have been involved in editing, G-Log, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Log. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Framework for clarification

Hi DGG: I have created a "framework for clarification" to help resolve the editorial conflicts at the Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas page, see Talk:Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas#Framework for clarification that should help deal with this. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks IZAK (talk), Bstone (talk) and DGG (talk) for all your hard work and concern about the TSNWA site. I really appreciate your comments and suggestions on how to write a NPOV article. Thanks also for giving me the benefit of the doubt and for throwing in a positive comment from time to time. I already feel completely out of my depth in this and like an idiot for accusing you of vandalism because of my ignorance. Your kindness in the face of my misunderstanding means a lot to me. I hope I can help you rewrite an appropriately spare article. Please take a look at what I have posted on the site and let me know how far off the mark I am... JudithRobinsonLevine (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Y-chromosomal Aaron

In agreement with the concerns you previously expressed, I've cut pretty much the whole of what was the "Responses" section to the talk page, for discussion.

It's a bit straggly, with so much text moved in there; but I'd very much welcome your input. Jheald (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a short general comment. I think you did very well to separate this material for discussion. DGG (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hi

Please, I ask you to delete the recent entry on the Administrator's noticeboard made by the User:Smoth 007. I don't want to believe that this is a personal vendetta against me since I was the one who included the article he created for speedy deletion. Cheers. --Mhsb (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC) if nobody comments further, it will very soon be only in the archive. DGG (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

re: International Cone Rule

Must have missed that; it's at AfD now. Crystallina (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Seditio

Recently you have deleted the page Seditio Under claims of blatent advertising. The Seditio community, would like to try to establish a page. But every time we are deleted for Supposed spam or advertising. Is this because for some reason the way the page was Designed?

I would like to see the old text that was on the page before it was deleted. The only thing I can see for deletion is if in some way, it was designed wrong, or something of the sorts.

Kilandor (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A number of people have commented that it resembles advertising besides myself--however since from the website it seems possible that it might be an important product, I have restored the article, deleted parts that will never be acceptable, placed a WP:PROD tag on it, giving you 5 days to find 3rd party references to it. I've commented further on your talk page. If & only if you can provide the references, remove the tag.DGG (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod from Johnson Kitto, article creator protested its deletion, brought to AfD

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Johnson Kitto, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson Kitto, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! -- Atama^chat 22:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

still not clear why you preferred AfD, but it hardly matters. DGG (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Martino de Judicibus

I replied to your question in the debate page about what I know of Martino. It is few, but it is based on documents. Do you think I should add those pieces of info to the article?--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Followup to earlier deletion tagging question

I have a second question about deletion tagging, to yourself as an admin with heavy experience in deletion matters, in regards to the article The Secret Duck. The article was moved from user space into article namespace quite deliberately by a (surprisingly, rather experienced) user to better hide their "secret page"—playing find the secret page is a not uncommon game among users. Clearly the page does not belong in article namespace, but I am hesitant to speedy flag it because there have been multiple posted "discoveries" by other users involved in the game.

I cannot cleanly move the page back without admin intervention. Should I leave a message on the user's talk page requesting the author contact an admin to move the page back without any redirects, then speedy delete flag after a couple days if nothing happens? Should I just flag it now and move on to other things? Or something else entirely? If flagged, could that be a housekeeping move G6? Typical A7, test, nonsense, vandalism, db-author, and no-context criteria all fail. I had hoped that my past experience and your previous answer would cover the basics of most moved user page situations, but apparently we are not there yet. -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The secret page game, however silly, is by tradition accepted around here, but doing it in mainspace is unacceptable. I will get in touch with the author and explain. If I fail, I will remove it as housekeeping or take it to MfD, explaining the circumstances. (The advantage of using an XfD process in difficult situations is that subsequent insertions can be removed via G4.) Ingenious people out to play games will defeat any attempt to fix rules. I almost never use, it, but there is a place for IAR. DGG (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Avasmail

While being email, it is web-based, classifying it under "web content." Am I misinterpreting it? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

see the talk--this question has in fact been raised, the interpretation is not 100% clear and the possibility of expanding the definition is being discussed. Myself, I interpret the content narrowly, to permit the deletion of things like YouTube videos. Some do currently use it more broadly--when they do, I don't challenge them at Deletion Review. In any case, for this particular article, it's asserted that its the main email system in the country concerned,which would be an assertion of notability. DGG (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Vilnija returns

Yes, it's that time of the year again. Comments appreciated at Talk:Vilnija#NPOV_dispute; I don't believe editors beliefs that some POV that may not even exist is not represented merit a NPOV tag... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I finally found myself needing to state a political opinion here to give a proper argument. DGG (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Generation Y

The user Samuel Michael Carter keeps adding a whole section to the Generation Y article that's basically advertising. I've tried reverting it, but he keeps adding it back. I noticed that you've written about it on his talk page and since you seem to be a veteran, I was wondering what your advice would be. Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it. I left a note on his talk page which suggests a solution. I see you've removed someone else's similar material, which was a very good idea also. 17:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Banishment in the Bible

Thanks for the support. I did put in an opening statement, but agree it does need additional work. I’ll put some more work in on it over the next couple of days and see if I can satisfy a few more opinions. Again, thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New York

Good to see you yesterday. --David Shankbone 19:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here! You might be interested in the Featured article nomination for Genetics. EdJohnston (talk)

What a Brilliant Idea

For User:DGG/LR. Hope to find that on WP:RS soon. (Maybe I'll put it there myself.) ScienceApologist (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC) 

it may need some modification to meet our actual practices. (I gather you are thinking in terms of how we should judge RSs here. The first rule would then say that for this particular context of use, we often need sources that are less than ideally reliable, saying something about using the best sources available for the subject at hand, and expressing them with the suitable qualifiers. )DGG (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What I like about it is that it gives a succinct explanation as to why, for example, Sean Carroll's blog is a reliable source for plasma cosmology while thunderbolts.info is not. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Church of Google

Hi. I just noticed that The Church of Google has been speedy deleted (G1 - patent nonsense). It was only at AfD last month (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (2nd nomination), keep); but as I can't see or recall the deleted state, I can't tell if that is legitimate, or if a mistake was made, or what. Could you investigate? Thanks. (and consider archiving your talkpage ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See here for the internet cached version as of March 15. AfD overrides CSD, so it should not have been deleted. According to the deletion log, only the first AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google was listed, which closed as delete in February 2007. Interestingly, the article also went to DRV in 2006 Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 20, so apparently it's been deleted before. In this case, maybe the deleting admin didn't see the second discussion. I'm not crazy about the article, but the 2nd AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (2nd nomination) closed as keep on 29 February 2008, so the article needs to be restored. I left a comment on the deleting admin's talk page User talk:Wassupwestcoast#Why was this page deleted? asking him to restore. — Becksguy (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It does look like the admin didnt see the 2nd discussion, because, looking at the deleted talk page, that result of the AfD was mistakenly never entered there. simple mistake. I doubt he's on-wiki now, so give him a chance to restore later in the morning. DGG (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree David, a simple honest mistake, and I would prolly have also done the same had I been an admin and handling that CSD, especially since it was deleted due to an AfD last year and it looked straightforward. No foul. The article does have a colorful history. Thanks, and I'm glad I assumed good faith. It usually works. BTW, if you get a chance, would you look over my contributions as we discussed on the train Sunday? When you have some extra time (if there is such a thing), as it's certainly no rush. Thanks much and any suggestions will be appreciated. PS — just got your note on TBHecht. Yes, I will. — Becksguy (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system as the article and its variants have under gone multipe AfDs with the majority closing as DELETE:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Church of Google - DELETE
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 20 - DELETION REVIEW ENDORSED DELETION
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google - DELETE
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (2nd nomination) - KEEP

I am going to put it up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (3rd nomination) one more time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

its the last one that counts, which was closed as a keep on Feb 29. How is this gamingthe system, while repeating AfDs until something gets deleted isnt? DGG (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist, please?

Hi, DGG! Was wondering if I could ask a favor of a fellow New Yorker. Would you mind watchlisting Edgar Allan Poe Cottage? I ask because someone has a thing against NYC cultural spots and while I know this article is far from finished, I think it's notable. I'm just afraid s/he is going to move toward speedies since the AfDs didn't go well and work has kept me a bit too busy of late. I know you tend to be around somewhat regularly and was thinking an extra set of eyes might help. Of course if it isn't notable, well then it goes but, I think it is.... Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me you're doing pretty well. It's also on the List of Registered Historic Places in Bronx County, New York under the name of Poe Cottage--I've added the link, and anything in the National Register is always without exception considered notable at WP. If you'll check Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan you'll see about plans to get photographs for them. I've added it to the Bronx target list, but nobody is likely to go up that far unless there are others in the neighborhood. I encourage you to identify some from the master list, make stub articles for them, and add them to the photo list. All a stub needs to be viable is that it's on the National Register and, ideally give an exact location. Dont worry about possible damage from the direction you mention, people noticed & the account is now blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. DGG (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm a bit of a culture vulture, stemming partially from work (no COI, I don't work for any of the orgs), so I tend to go a bit overboard with museum and cultural organizations, witness my to-do list: User:Travellingcari/Museums. While I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is a poor reason, my logic in creation is that if we can have ninety bazillion articles on tv and pop culture, I can counter them with what I view as historically and culturally significant sites. I'm in the process of working through Historic House Trust properties to bring them all up a level (and creating those that don't exist). Thanks for the WP Manhattan link, I'm off to investigate. I can easily get some photos and am happy to see if they're up to people's standards for articles. I haven't ventured much into the image world of WP yet, but since a chunk are in my back yard, there's no reason not to pitch in. Didn't realise the person had been blocked so thanks for that heads up, I don't think I read the discussion through to the end -- just reloaded my watchlist and saw an AfD explosion. Have a good evening! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just drop it

Inspired by scrolling leisurely through ANI, and my past experiences. Just wanted to hear you thoughts, if you have any: Wikipedia:Just drop it. Thanks - Equazcion •✗/C • 00:26, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC) yes. waiting for the chance. DGG (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tia Keyes

Thanks for the list, I will peruse and comment again. It is useful knowing that Google Scholar is biased against ACS articles. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

for the record, the problem was primarily with ACS. It also applied to Elsevier to a considerable degree. DGG (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

M.L.S.

Hoi, in the footer of your mail you use the acronym M.L.S. It is next to Ph.D. I cannot find what it means. Wiktionary does not help, Google only gives me Major League Soccer .. I am sure you can inform me what M.L.S. means to you. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Master of Library Science; it's on the disambiguation page for M.L.S.. DGG (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Human rights section in country page

You once advised me that human rights section in People's Republic of China page is appropriate. I support your notion. But how about a human rights section in the United States article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

see section 4.5 of that article for how it is currently being handled. There are many articles of various aspects of the subject, in particular the general one Human rights and the United States, so the first step would probably to have a link to that page in the text of the article somewhere, either in the history or the politics section. go slowly & with consensus. This is not an occasion for the POINT, or the expression of political views, & I will only support this if done appropriately.DGG (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

==A3 to Prod ?==

Do you really think it is necessary to {{Prod}} for process? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think it necessary to follow the speedy criteria as written. Anything else leads to chaos Some people will delete appropriately, others not. The purpose of process is to prevent misuse, at the cost of going slightly slower. Of all WP process, I think PROD is the cleverest compromise. DGG (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Retcon (Torchwood)

I don't quite understand your edit summary for removing the PROD tag on Retcon (Torchwood). The link to the earlier AfD was provided as illustrative of the other concerns (WP:N, WP:PLOT), not as an authoritative precedent. Do you feel the article meets, or has the potential to meet, these standards?--Trystan (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

commented at the AfD. you should have realised this would be a matter more suited for AfD in the first place, as it was not uncontroversial. It takes a lot more than this to establish a firm rule.DGG (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

+

I never thought there was, or ever will be, a firm rule. "Retcon" has much less significance and history in the show than the Time Agency, and no one objected to the arguments set out in the PROD tag summary, so I'm not sure why I should have realized that AfD was called for. Are all articles on fictional topics sufficiently controversial in terms of notability that PROD should always be skipped in favour of a full AfD?--Trystan (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite clear that an article such like this has no encyclopedic value. --Sebastian Palacios (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what happened

but you seem to have doubled your user talk. You have a dup copy (and 500+ sections?) Everything is here twice? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

yep, trying to fix it, I tried to resolve an edit conflict & messed it up.DGG (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: SF-36

I didn't speedy it for notability, I placed a CSD tag for context, which in the first version there was absolutely none. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I found the original version tough to read, but its been fixed, and thats what counts. Don't worry, I didn't interpret your comment as anything other than a friendly note. :) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-psychology

I saw you expressed an interest in this on OM's page. I wonder if you'd care to glance an eye over attachment therapy which is a classic pseudoscience. I've put it in for GA. The last time I did this the reviewer said it was too detailed but I'm loathe to dump good information when there's so much misinformation on the Web. I've tried to make it alot more explanatory and user friendly. However, I'm too involved from having written most of it to see how it could be tightened up.Fainites ^barley 11:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a comment about one illustration on the article talk page. It happens to be one that you uploaded. Please take another look, back at the licensing information at your source. it is not a CC-attribution compatible license. And I don't think it's even fair use. And it's an identifiable picture of a child without a model release. I have some informal advice about the prose style--it is written very professionally, but it would look less detailed and less dense if the paragraphs were shorter. DGG (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. This was one of several pictures I uploaded when the site - stckxchnge - was listed as a source on a Wiki image page! It now seems that site is no longer listed. I'll remove them. Its not easy to find any images of this therapy. There are some training videos on YouTube and CNN did some prgrammes but it would be difficult to get stills from these. I tried to get permission to use a diagram given to a newspaper at the time when a particular AT centre was being closed down after a child died. It was a diagram of the technique whereby an adult lies on a child and presses their fist into the abdomen to relaease 'visceral rage' - but the most they agreed to was a link.Fainites ^barley 09:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read the discussion on the talk page about those images. It will be difficult to get a good image for this subject. You might try for a portrait of the founder of the field, if you can find one which is GFDL compliant. Vague pictures of children in general are in my opinion meaningless illustrations, & if they remain I'd consider that a reason against GA status. DGG (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK . I've removed the pictures. Pity. They were good pictures, even if 'purely decorative' as you say. The last reviewer complained that there weren't any. "You can please all of the people......" Fainites ^barley 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Prods

Thanks man, i'm still sort of learning about using those. Actually since you're an admin, would you also know any pages I could go to where I can find out how to archive my talk page up to this point? MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC) -- see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Dont use me as an example, I let mine run on too long. DGG (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Username change

As I read the you would like to use your real name as your username, you may want to visit this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username --Sebastian Palacios (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

by this point, I tend to think DGG is my real name. The first G is, incidentally, not a middle initial, just that I tried to use DG and found it already taken. (smile) DGG (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2004

I've provided three links to the Billboard site which give me grave concern that we are violating copyright. I think we should let someone who deals in copyvio take a look rather than talking about it ourselves. Links: 1, 2, 3. The company assert copyright, and they sell the information which we are now giving away for free. And I've just noticed a forth -licensing. I think we have to get someone to take a closer look. Would you object if I replaced the copyvio tag, given the information contained in those links? SilkTork *^YES!}~

if you want to get it discussed, list it at copyright problems,; listing for speedy deletion prevents, not promotes, discussion. I'll have to look at those pages later tomorrow. I cant get them to load on my machine now. DGG (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. That's where I went previously, and the instructions are to place {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} on the article. Which is what I did - also listing here. You then removed the tag. Did I do something wrong, or is there another place that you are thinking of? SilkTork *^YES! 10:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

you didn't do anything wrong. Tell me, do you know how much of the material in he published lists was included in the WP article? do they publish just the list, or extensive additional information? DGG (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that charts are compiled different ways. A person compiling a chart has to do a lot of research. Different charts return different results depending on the methods used. People who wish to use the charts normally have to pay a fee for them. Compiling a chart is the same as doing any other form of professional research. When someone copies a Billboard chart they are copying the results of that professional research. That Billboard say a record was the number 1 seller is Billboard's information - it may not be an absolute fact as another chart compiler may have a different record as the best seller for that year. See for example 2007_in_music#Best-selling_albums_globally_2007 where two different chart compilers arrive at different results. So when Billboard publish "just the list" that list is their research - total - it's their property. No need for additional material. Now the question is, how much of their material is one allowed to use without breaking copyright? I don't know. And you don't know - and I don't think anyone else on that AfD talkpage knows. The best way I can see of alerting people to the fact that we need an expert view on this is to put a tag on it saying we are concerned this may be a copyvio, would an expert please take a look and either remove the tag or delete the article. Putting the tag on it is asking for that opinion - it has nothing to do with discussion, because I don't think breaking the law is an option we can talk about. If in doubt - ask for another opinion! SilkTork *^YES! 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but that was not my question. I wanted to know what information the chart provided beyond the position. There is no serious question that the information asa whole is protected by copyright--the question I have is whether the rank by itself is just a summary of the information, and more data than that is provided to subscribers. I don't know--I've never myself actually seen one in an on-line environment. Also, rhe tag dbcopyvio is for undoubted copyvio. Thats the tag I as wondering about in mind. DGG (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. So we should use {{copyvio}} instead? I was reading Wikipedia:Copyright problems rather than Wikipedia:Copyright violations as I saw it as a "problem" rather than a "violation". Sometimes we don't help ourselves with the wording of our guidelines! And oddly, {{copyvio}} wipes the page clean while {{db-copyvio}} merely puts a message on the page and leaves the content in place. But if that is the preferred tag, then shall we use that one? It would be good to get a view on this by someone who knows. Do you know anyone on the project who understands copyright law and can give the page a once over to see if it's OK? SilkTork *^YES! 11:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD is the place to discuss it. My view, that such things may not be copyvios, is probably a minority, and i would not be surprised if the article is deleted. A place to ask for attention is at WP:Copyright questions, but usually AfD is enough of a discussion & if the consensus is copyvio and its clear, the AfD is often very quickly closed. DGG (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC).

As I'm still uncertain, I'll use the tag you suggested. The article passed AfD as a non consensus keep, though I have asked the closing admin to look again, as I thought the closing arguments were stronger and more numerous. SilkTork *^YES! 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with duties

Hi there,

I expect to be real busy in real life this week. Can you watch my admin user pages (especially User:Bearian and User talk:Bearian)? Thanks in advance. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks! This is given for covering the back of another admin. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with deleted article

Hi DGG, My name is Patricia Caicedo, I am writing to ask your help regarding the deletion of an article. A while ago, an article about me and my career was deleted. As you will be able to see, if you go to my website www.patriciacaicedo.com I am classical singer and musicologist with an international career, I have published books, CDs, Im the director of a Festival, etc. and even was included in 2008 Who's Who in AMerica for my contribution for the preservation to the Latin American and Spanish Art Song. (You can try google me and will see some thousands of references to me and my work)

Initially the article was in Wikipedia for some months but it was deleted when I added my album covers. Lately one of the women who used to work at my PR try to solve the problem and she was not successful, so we forgot about that and only now, more than a year after that episode, I am retaking the lead to see how could we solve this obstacle.

It does not make sense that I can not post the most accurate information about my work and career. It has to be other person or institution who does that to be valid? Could you please help me with this? gracias, Patricia Caicedo PS Please write me if you can, to my email address patricia@patriciacaicedo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singerpat (talk • contribs) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not my field, but I looked at the article and I think it might be acceptable if trimmed of excessive detail, especially the part about the festival, which might be a separate article, and if it is referenced according to WP:REF, in the formal way explained there. The way to do it in this case is to rewrite the article, being modest, but including all the most imprortant claims and giving unimpeachable sources for them, place it on your user talk page, and then ask at WP:Deletion Review about whether it can be restored. leave out the picture for now, or if you want to use it, place a GFDL license on it on your website acording to WP:COPYRIGHT. Before you ask at deletion review,ask someone who works in the field more to check it. The admin who deleted it last was User:Nihonjoe, a very reliable & experienced administrator. If you do not have a copy of the text, email me from my user page link. DGG (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Brad Simon/Philadelphia Inquirer

DGG - Thank you so much for your comments on Brad Simon's article - they are extremely helpful as I just received word that you are correct, we can not get the rights from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Please forgice my ignorance, but do you mean that if I post the original hard copy, that it would be alright? Or, that I can just post excerpts from the story that are from the original? Again, I am very new at this, so your guidance is tremendously helpful. You can reach me at jgilbert@lakpr.com if that is easier. THANK YOU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.90.186 (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

print sources are perfectly OK as references. Just give the year and page. Not everything is on the internet at all, and the Inquirer is available in libraries. It is also OK to add the paid online source, as many libraries do have it, as long as you give the actual information about where in the paper it is. But you have to do it as a reference, not an external link. The same goes for all of the other stuff from newspapers etc. --they are references not links. . For this article, since it's BLP, just do exactly as you said--add a quotation making the point. A sentence should do. It can go in the article like "According to the Philadelphia Inquirer <ref> Date and page </ref> " Whatever they said. ..." And see WP:REF for the details of the format. DGG (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there - I took your suggestions regarding the Philadelphia Inquirer and re-wrote the article - I hope this one is better. THANKS AGAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakpr (talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

speedy tags

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Zinger_Mini_Classics&oldid=200524816 looks pretty un-notable if you ask me. there's so much stuff that is unreferenced and therefore of questionable notability, i guess sometimes i don't fully check it. clearly my bad, and i'll be more forgiving in future. thanks for the feedback. with regards red zinger, twinkle describes the tag as 'A7: Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content', but what it puts up just mentions people. again, my bad i guess.

ninety:one 14:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

ok, this Raymond Dean. I would have no hesitation in tagging db-bio. do you think that would be correct? ninety:one 14:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

not at all. "Raymond Dean is the George and Frances Ball Distinguished Professor of Neuropsychology at Ball State University" is as clear assertion of notability as they come. In fact, with the rest of it, it will certainly pass AfD-- see WP:PROF, "e founder and editor-in-chief of both the Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology and the Bulletin of the National Academy of Neuropsychology. He served as editor-in-chief of the Journal of School Psychology " is considered a demonstration of really major distinction in the profession. Not just for speedy, but for WP:N. in general saying anyone holds an office like Professor or even Councilman, or CEO or anything possibly significant is an indication that they might possibly be important--even if, like Councilman, it might not pass AfD. nn-bio is for no indication at all. It typically applies to articles that belong in FaceBook, or saying things like, He is notable because he has an unfinished record he hopes to release. If you doubt the notability, and think it might not be contested, use PROD. If you doubt it and think it will be contested, use AfD. To see what passes AfD, watch things there. Watch a good while before you comment there to see the sort of comments that are helpful. DGG (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

Well, I actually just left an unrefenced tag on it in the first place. So I just restored the tag that was placed there by another editor. I decided that I should let an admin be the voice on the issue because I didn't want to get between the user and the original tagger. In fact I helped to make sure the user's references showed up on the article by properly tagging it for a reflist. It has been inherited knowledge to me that it's bad form for one editor to remove a speedy tag for any reason and I was bitten tonight for removing a speedy tag on an article that is currently in an open AfD case. So I'm a little gunshy in that regard.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes,you didn't do anything really wrong. Remember that anyone can remove an incorrect speedy tag--it does not have to wait for an admin. I don't myself see anything wrong with removing a speedy in an open afd if it doesnt meet speedy--I do it myself from time to time--let me look at that & I'll get back to you. DGG (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been looking for a "rule of engagement" on that kind of thing myself. Any input would be appreciated.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see

this: [23] --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Telly Awards

An article that you have been involved in editing, Telly Awards, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards. Thank you. Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Damn, orangemike, archive part of your talk page already, it takes ages to load and edit :P --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize this is DGG's talkpage, not Orangemikes? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your advice about speedy tagging

Did you have any particular article in mind when you advised me that I should be cautious in tagging new articles for speedy deletion? I think everything I tagged today has been very straightforward.

As for the notability of John Dwyer (Professor), I would have agreed with you, but I noticed that it's a recreation of an autobio which was already CSD#A7'd. If an admin already deleted it on that basis, I figured it was the correct tag. I will be more cautious if something is questionable like that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

PROD is always safe. Phkents is a story by a very famous author, tho the link was wrong and didnt show it. Of course, if no independent sources can be shown for notability it should be merged back into the famous work it was published in. Not recognizing things like that is one of the problems with speedy. As for Dwyer, looking at the earlier version, I think it well might not hold at AfD, unless there are more publications than indicated there or the textbooks can be shown to be widely used. Admins have been known to disagree--you did nothing really wrong. DGG (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

On pots and kettles

RP, do you not realise this is not being constructive? Can you not realise that even trained academics in the same field can differ with each other, and usually manage to maintain reasonably cordial relations nonetheless? DGG (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear DGG. Would you consider that someone, a trained academic, writing to me "If you don't stop your aggressive, disruptive behaviour you will be blocked. " is an invitation to "cordial" relations? I honestly think that Wikipedia customs are a parody of the saying "The pot calling the kettle black". I do not subscribe to these artificial rules; courtesy begins at home. When attacked, without cause, and without courtesy as well, I defend myself, and respond in kind - though not with the brutality of those who attack me. The reality is: Wikipedialand is not a civilized place, it is a parody of The Terror, with ascendancy to those who can be the most audacious at denouncing others. The metaphor that I found was most apt, when discussing this with someone we both know, was "Lord of the Flies". Civility does not grow spontaneously out of anarchy - what grows out of it, given human nature - is ever more vicious anarchy. I don't subscribe to any of this, and wouldn't want to live in a society governed by such hypocrisy as to enshrine a "rule book" for good behaviour, and then have it turn into the "code" by which others can be denounced, and sent to the guillotine. And, thank God, I don't have to. I see, more and more, to use yet another metaphor, that this is like a fantasy video game, of a very deleterious sort, in which people ascribe to themselves increasing degrees of power, depending on how many targets they have hit, and how many opponents they have shot down. It has nothing to do with what I value. It is the sort of video game that I would forbid my children from playing, lest they acquire, by increments, the idea, sooner or later, that it is a good idea to shoot up a crowd of shoppers in a mall. R_Physicist (talk)

Yes, the place has some survivals of the usenet & MUD style; with 50,000 or so active people the full range of human behavior is going to be represented, especially those to whom the present somewhat nasty style is congenial, and who might be less tolerated in some more formal settings. From Wordsworth: "The good old rule /Sufficeth them, the simple plan,/That they should take who have the power,/ And they should keep who can.." But it is not impossible for those who are prepared to work even in this manner to build something good, and to the considerable surprise of the more conventional, they have done so. Those like myself, who think that they would build even better if they adopted more of the refinements of civilized intercourse, must demonstrate this by practicing them personally. It is up to us to find a peaceful way of protecting ourselves, and this is not impossible either, for among the 50,000 there are at least a few hundred who can ally themselves against the bullies, and have enough self-confidence to avoid turning into bullies themselves. 500 determined people can accomplish a good deal, even in a peaceful way. I see my own role as encouraging them to come forwards and to persist. DGG (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I admire your benign philosophy, but I'm not sure I could subscribe to it. From what I have seen of the "inner workings" of Wikipedia, I don't regard it as a very nice place. Neither nice at the human level, nor propitious to the effective compilation or propagation of knowledge. It might perhaps be harnessed to something else, as a provider of crude raw material, and eventually made useful by adding another layer; i.e. reducing the anarchic input that produces a compendium with no more than, say 15% reliability, to something closer to 90% reliability, by having some qualified people sift through it, and only retaining the 15% (if there is that much) that is worth retaining. What goes on in the innards of Wikipedia - the insult trading, the threats, the denunciations for violations of the Wikipedia rulebook of conduct, would not have to be known to the others. It would just be the hell-fire from which some modicum of raw material, in all its crudeness, emerges. And then the next level could pick out, in the name of substance, and reliability, what small fraction is worth retaining. R_Physicist (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

just to close this, the reliability at present is almost certainly more like 85% than 15%--repeated surveys including one by Nature have shown as much. That it contains non-academic matters in large part is true, but that's the intention--to "filter the internet". It will tend to contain articles about things whose importance is promoted and overemphasized by individuals of cliques. It does not handle well controversial topics where apparent experts disagree. It can be disrupted by matters where some people have strong personally-involving political , religious, medical, or psychological interests and prejudices that are incompatible with those of other people. It can't deal well with obscure areas where the only contributors are biased or ignorant. There isn't much else in the world that does very well with these sort of things either. But the solution to all is wider participation of good people.

Our real problem is then just what you have shown, and you are right about it--a culture that is insufficiently friendly and helpful to newcomers, be they academics used to a different way or working or young people not yet used to even relatively high standards. Again, this can only be dealt with by more good people with a better way of working being persistent here. Using my estimate of 50,000 active people, and the need for 500 to push sufficiently for change, 2 or 3 new good people a day will do it in les than a year.A serious effort to recruit them from both the universities and elsewhere will do it--the universities do not have the monopoly of either knowledge or common sense. or good manners. DGG (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: county police departments

Hello! I responded on my talk page!--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Swinton circle

An editor has nominated Swinton circle, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinton circle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Mark Hasker (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Red tag

You deleted this article on 18th March, and I've just noticed that the author (who requested the deletion) has contacted me about my opposition to the deletion. I don't recall any involvement with this article at all, but as it appears that part of the subject matter relates to my employer, I feel that I need to check the revision history to ensure that I know what I did do. Would it be possible for you to briefly restore it in my user space so that I can check the revision histories? I will contact you withing 24 hours of restoration to request that it be deleted again.

Many thanks

Mayalld (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored to User:Mayalid/RT. Please note that it was deleted as a prod, and that any user may request its reinsertion again in article space, and disputes over content will need to be discussed thereafter, with respect to COI and NPOV -- and Verifiability. I notice that the references there do not refer to this specific technology, but to IMT in general.DGG (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help! I've checked out everything that I needed to, and tagged it CSD U1 Mayalld (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

hoax articles

Why did you removed the speedy tags from the article regarding a bogus Korean holiday and a book with bogus citations? The book article tells completely a bogus story with the same name of other book.--Appletrees (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I thought it needed discussion as not fully obvious to me. Once you added the link to the proof that it was vandalism I speedy deleted it myself without needing to be prompted. I consider the addition of hoax to A3 not safe, and intend to revisit the question, since it was justified as a trial only, per FT2 at [24] DGG (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I should've provided a link to prove that the articles are bogus. However, the recent one seems to be created by a sock of the banned user Azukimonaka (talk · contribs) or Kamosuke (talk · contribs) who has obsession with Anti-Japanese sentiment related articles per ODN, a Japanese ISP. --Appletrees (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to summarize the content of the book. It is translated by the clumsy google tool, but you can confirm on whether the article is really a hoax or not.[25]--Appletrees (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Countering Systemic Bias

Thank you for responding in good faith to me here, DGG. I have been barred from responding, and am complying, so unfortunately it will appear that I have left that discussion.

BrownHairedGirl, an administrator, has informed me here that I am a malicious troll, and that my continuing this discussion outside an RFC or MFD, or presumably my inaction on it, would be further proof that I am a malicious troll. I do not believe those demanded actions are appropriate at this time, because in my opinion, to RFC something that has not been sufficiently discussed, and beyond that has had discussion closed by an administrator under threats of administrative action, seems like behaviour that would be correctly regarded as trolling. An MFD is of course out of the question, and I have never called for the dissolution of this project or any other, and am very surprised to hear BrownHairedGirl make that suggestion. BrownHairedGirl has also accused me of bad faith, [26] of defaming large groups of editors, of "campaigning,"[27] and of lying [28] (and previous). I deny all these things, but the barrage of accusations has left me unwilling to try to convince BrownHairedGirl otherwise. The accusation of campaigning is one I suppose I would be "confirming" by posting about this anywhere else (possibly even here, but I don't care, I hate being misrepresented, slandered, then gagged, then responded to in good faith). Know that I would like to respond to your response, but am unsure how to proceed under these conditions. Blackworm (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You might want to enable your email, or email me. But my general advice is that effectively questioning the meaning of practices takes time, and changes are only slowly adopted. Pursuing too intently a matter that has been rejected is not considered productive here. I have proposed many things that have been rejected, and I bring them up again several months later. I have once or twice succeeded in see a gradual shift of consensus. It also helps to edit a variety of topics, rather than concentrate of the few one is most interested in--it dispels the feeling that you want to adjust things to support a particular POV. This is especially true if these few are among the most contentious articles here. In other words, the best present course is to drop the matter for the time being. DGG (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I did exactly what you suggest -- I posted two months ago to Talk: WikiProject Gender Studies, and haven't touched it since. Since they seemed to rest on systemic bias, and two editors there pointed me to that project countering it, I waited over two months and then politely posted to Talk: WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. For that, I get pounced on by an admin from the previous discussion, accusing me of "campaigning" "for months."

I engage people in controversial areas because they are precisely where Wikipedia's policies are in most need of application. Given the admittedly greater time it takes to do so, I don't feel I should have to prove myself elsewhere than the subjects I'm interested in; indeed I'm being singled out for it due to a perception that I am disproportionately representing a minority view. Look at the contributions of the people opposed to me. Are their significant contributions diverse? If I'm wrong on the policy, I get told. It doesn't happen too often lately, except in the case of a tiny few editors with connections to WP:CSB and WP:GS, where the accusations fly freely.

I keep my email closed to quash any accusations of campaigning that is off the record, given that seem prone to unwarranted accusations of inappropriate "campaigning", an accusation that seems close to a direct accusation of violating WP:CANVASS, without the need to support it with facts. Everything I do or say about Wikipedia is in Wikipedia, and I believe discussions about modifying Wikipedia should be in Wikipedia. Since BrownHairedGirl has already essentially called me a liar, I am happy to have at least closed that potential avenue for slander, and opened my entire history for any interested editor to verify statements (like BrownHairedGirl's about "campaigning") -- IF they care enough. It's much easier to just voice solidarity with the majority (or WikiProject) and move on. If I were a believer in the existence of "systemic bias" in Wikipedia perhaps I would believe that this editor disinterest is proof of bias, that I should organize against and counter with the force of the several convinced (e-mails flowing). But I'm not. Thank you for your advice and comments, they are appreciated. Please don't hesitate to post on my talk page should you have anything else to add. Blackworm (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

AHM (magazine)

Please go back to AHM (magazine) page and put your 2nd opinons on the page; as the page has been updated. Whenaxis (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry, no change in my opinion DGG (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Me Again

Hello DGG, yes it is me again :-)! Can you look into this situation [29] and give an opinion. Sorry to ask, but I value honest opinions, over condescending remarks. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC) I made one more try at explaining things. WHat you originally said on his talkpage was absolutely right, and is exactly the same as the advice I gave. Unfortunately, after that, things got rather defensive; there's no real need to defend oneself in a situation like this, and it seems to have come across as aggression. DGG (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bradley D. Simon

Hi DGG - You offered me some terrific advice last week about how to incorporate an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer into the Bradley D. Simon entry. There were some other edits made to the piece as well, but no one else has commented since... I am wondering if I could trouble you for your thoughts? I would hate to see the article get deleted, your guidance is appreciated. -JG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.90.186 (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I formatted the references for you. You should be able to find the link for the NYT article, and, probably, the NY law journal. If so, add them. Try also to find a ref for the Bayou Hedge Fund Group case. DGG (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I can't tell you how much I appreciate your help. I added some of the links you suggested and now I'm hoping there is enough of a case to keep the article online. Fingers crossed! Will the others who commented get a notification that there were edits made, or do they just check in regularly when they have commented on an article? Thanks again, JG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakpr (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nick Roddis

In case you want to go back and sort it, it's actually a copyvio (G12) CSD. The formatting looked very odd, so I Googled it and got the page I listed in the notice. MSJapan (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

not surprised. I should have checked myself.DGG (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

User page of a departed user

As an admin familiar with the case, could you have a look at the history of physicist's talk page? Perhaps you can delete it or discuss it with the admin who declined speedy deletion (probably for formal reasons and because it looked fishy to him). I believe there could be privacy reasons, and the user is unlikely to return to dot all the i s. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a private communication from him saying he intends to modify it to remove some of the identifying information, so i will do so as seems appropriate on the basis of that. It should certainly not be deleted, though he is welcome to blank it if he desires. DGG (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Advice

Got the message you posted on my talk page. Sorry about nominating the page - my understanding of the criterion is that generally the user creates a "stublike" article which has enough of an assertion of notability to keep the page clear during expansion. I'll reread the policies for CSD, notability, and professorship. However, I feel the professor in general does not satisfy the guidelines for professor notability, or the guideline you yourself have outlined on your userpage; based on what I could get here and here and here, the only part of WP:PROF I can find satisfied is possibly point 5; apparently, he was one of the early advocates of SCORM. I'm not sure if that is enough though. Tell me if I am completely butchering the notability criterion here, or if my analysis is partially correct. Thanks for the note! GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that a user generally the user does write something more substantial than a single sentence. It does , as you say, help avoid getting the article prematurely deleted. But there is no rule that he has to. I would not have left you the note except that you nominated the article within 60 seconds of the time it was entered. many people with unreliable connections press save after each small edit. I do it sometimes myself, if I think somethings screwy with the computer. A little more tolerance should be allowed. Now, to pass speedy one does not have to pass WP:N. I do not know whether this professor is notable. My guess without looking at the publication record yet is--just like yours--that he probably is not. But that's for AfD to determine (or Prod--I added a Prod2 to an article for an assistant professor up there just this afternoon, because I checked the record and agreed with the prodder that it could not pass afd.) Speedy is for no claim whatsoever to notability. it doesnt have to be good enough. it just has to be a claim. This has been discussed ad infinitum at the talk page for speedy, WT:CSD.

There are several unresolved positions about it. I have proposed that it has to be a claim that some reasonable person could think would make someone worthy of an encyclopedia article, rather than just a claim. someone might for example realistically think (incorrectly) that an assistant professor would be encyclopedia-worthy, but nobody could really say this about a kindergarden teacher except in very special circumstances. My position was rejected, and just a claim is sufficient (yes, you read that right, I wanted to move in a more deletionist direction) Others have wanted to move yet further, to a claim that is not contradicted by our basic N guidelines. Needless to say, that too has been soundly rejected. The guideline is still interpreted with common sense, "I am the sexiest person in my class" gets speedied, and so does "Our band has made a recording, but it has not yet been distributed." Just a little more controversially, saying one is the senior class president in high school is usually speedied also, though there's a minority of people there who would not speedy it. And, of course, there are people who go by their own interpretation, and there are some admins who do in fact delete via speedy articles that they thing would not pass afd, regardless of weak claims to notability. People take some of these to Deletion Review, where they are overturned, but there are many more that could be so taken. So far, nobody is willing to take sanctions against admins who steadfastly think the rules mean otherwise than the consensus has it, and act accordingly.

so you do understand notability pretty well. But speedy is a much lower standard. I suggest you put in the material about his role with SCORM that you have found so it's there, and, if in doubt take it to PROD or AFD. If I cant find much in the way of publications, I may PROD it myself, since it does seem that the author has abandoned it. I frequently !vote to delete at afd articles that i have declined to speedy. The point is probably that if there's any chance of a discussion being helpful, its not for speedy. DGG (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks DGG! I'll add the SCORM info in and see if I can find anything else about the professor. GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 22:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text from deleted page

Will it be possible for you to provide text of deleted page Sahaj Marg India ? please respond at my talk page. --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

DGG, do what you will, and this may inform your decision: [[30]].Sethie (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Need of expertise

I've referenced you as an uninvolved party knowledgable in this field at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Outside_view, could you take a look at the CAMERA article and try to NPOV it? I know very little about the issue at hand or what a good version of it would look like. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've commented.DGG (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

IMPACT Charlottesville

You commented on IMPACT Charlottesville at the deletion review log, but I did not understand exactly what you said and how that pertains to possibly being able to retrieve the article. Could you help me out by explaining? Community service (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Means, sure I can send it to you. I am moving it to User:Community service/IMPACT-CharlottesvilleYou will find all the previous versions in the page history. when you are finished with it, please place a "db-user" tag on the article. DGG (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

great! thanks, I'm done with it. You'll have to forgive my ignorance, but "db-user" tag. I'm totally unfamiliar with that. Community service (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, forget it. I understand now. Thanks again. Community service (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Email

Please stop emailing me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

sure, I wont send another after the single one I sent recently & the single one earlier this week--at least that's all I remember) DGG (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and those are all the emails I know of, I just don't want this matter to continue, since it is effectively over, especially given the particular stance you seem to have taken. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing speedy

From WP:Deletion policy -- "Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below." The tag & hangon were placed respectively, by me, and Berian. We have considerable different notions about notability and another things, but neither of us are newcomers to Wikipedia. A sober nrief description of a business is not spam. I have now placed an underconstruction tag on Goldford stud, which as normally interpreted gives 5 days to expand it. Please feel free to send it to afd after that if it isn't improved. DGG (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The change log stated "(better tags)" as a clarification to the CSD removal. My assumption was that the CSD tag might have been overwritten due to the page being edited twice within a minute (Sometimes pressing save twice happends). The clarification notice was mainly added to cover the case where this was not an accidental removal.

However, i still stand by my judgment that this article is written like an advertisement: A leading horse breeding facility. Some of the finest thoroughbreds.

Now of course, this is a matter of simply writing it as WP:NPOV, but the article also states no reliable (Or any at all, for that matter) third party sources. The combination of it being written in an advertisement-like way, along with the lack of sourcing was enough for me to drop a CSD in the first place. On the other side i got to admit that i am fairly, if not overly, zealous when it comes to articles about for profit companies. Perhaps that is playing up a little again, but either way: the article needs some work to meet the guidelines. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

yep, spammy, but if it can be easily improved it gets improved not deleted, per WP:Deletion policy. Obviously, if nobody improves it & sources can't be found, it's another matter entirely. Sorry I didn't leave a clearer edit summary. Almost all of your G11s were good G11s, and I (and I see Berian also) deleted the articles accordingly. Just try for a little greater precision, and remember the usefulness of WP:PROD. (and, by the way, we regard spam from commercial and non-commercial sources similarly--feel free to apply the same criteria to non-commercial--though in their case it's always worth checking first for copyvio, since that's frequent and of course unambiguous.DGG (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Sometimes i forget that between DELETE and KEEP is also an option that is called IMPROVE. Before starting on new page patrol i only did vandalism patrol, which did not include such an option. For non profit im quite a bit more lenient, where im almost always ok with the articles if it has some notability, and a source(I just add some maintenance tags then).

As for the prod: I don't like prodding articles. There is a clear ruling that CSD tags may not be removed by the original user that created the article. If the user does so anyway, its possible to add a warning for doing so if it happens repeatedly. Since any user is allowed remove the prod, there is no objection if the creator of the article removes it over and over, which causes the need to spend 10 minutes or so to start a fairly SNOWy afd :). Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Replacing speedy

From WP:Deletion policy -- "Renominations: Either a page fits the speedy deletion criteria or it does not. If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below." The tag & hangon were placed respectively, by me, and Berian. We have considerable different notions about notability and another things, but neither of us are newcomers to Wikipedia. A sober nrief description of a business is not spam. I have now placed an underconstruction tag on Goldford stud, which as normally interpreted gives 5 days to expand it. Please feel free to send it to afd after that if it isn't improved. DGG (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The change log stated "(better tags)" as a clarification to the CSD removal. My assumption was that the CSD tag might have been overwritten due to the page being edited twice within a minute (Sometimes pressing save twice happends). The clarification notice was mainly added to cover the case where this was not an accidental removal.

However, i still stand by my judgment that this article is written like an advertisement: A leading horse breeding facility. Some of the finest thoroughbreds.

Now of course, this is a matter of simply writing it as WP:NPOV, but the article also states no reliable (Or any at all, for that matter) third party sources. The combination of it being written in an advertisement-like way, along with the lack of sourcing was enough for me to drop a CSD in the first place. On the other side i got to admit that i am fairly, if not overly, zealous when it comes to articles about for profit companies. Perhaps that is playing up a little again, but either way: the article needs some work to meet the guidelines. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

yep, spammy, but if it can be easily improved it gets improved not deleted, per WP:Deletion policy. Obviously, if nobody improves it & sources can't be found, it's another matter entirely. Sorry I didn't leave a clearer edit summary. Almost all of your G11s were good G11s, and I (and I see Berian also) deleted the articles accordingly. Just try for a little greater precision, and remember the usefulness of WP:PROD. (and, by the way, we regard spam from commercial and non-commercial sources similarly--feel free to apply the same criteria to non-commercial--though in their case it's always worth checking first for copyvio, since that's frequent and of course unambiguous.DGG (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Goldford stud

With words like leading and finest, this article was not merely, as you said at User talk:Excirial, a "sober" description of a business. In the future, when you remove deletion tags, please take care to do some minimal cleanup when necessary. Please don't view your role as merely "saving" articles from deletion; also do your part to protect the integrity of Wikipedia as a neutral encyclopedia. 152.3.246.238 (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The definition of G11 is: "pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Please note the words exclusively and fundamental. The need to remove two adjectives isn't a need for fundamental rewriting. (Especially as something was asserted that would be clearly notable and justify the adjectives.) As I said above, i wont necessarily support the article at Afd unless its a lot better by then. If you look at my deletion log, you'll see I deleted about 900 articles since the beginning of January--I think that makes me one of the highest-deleting admins. If they all did one-tenth as much we'd improve things in short order and I'd have more time for rescue. As it is, I need to spend too much of it in deleting articles. I note that my judgment about the article was confirmed by a even less inclusionist admin. DGG (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that 152.3.246.238 (Who forgot to login here? This is not a first time user for sure. :) ) meant that you should have taken out the spammy bits when you removed the G11 CSD. I don't think that he or she is questioning the template removal itself. Other than this little clarification im keeping out of this discussion. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RE copies

need to see what it was all about... there is one whole category on french wikipedia, see this, i was surprised as why it is such a contentious topic, realized later that it was about sexual abuse and other court cases, that is why the group is soo much worried as not to get the page published. You have my assurance, i will not post it, but need to know what all was there which was so contentious about it.--talk-to-me! (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

One more question, what can be done with someone like user:Reneeholle?, I have noticed, the moment i touched this topic, this user has started to trouble me, upto some extend, members of a brainwashing group react violently only, but this particular experience has been trouble-some, she started with giving warnings after warnings, [31], and then approached ANI, even before i could respond i found that i was blocked, she has time!!! if this is not the only thing that she does !! After that she nominated the temp page for speedy deletion [32] , immediately after it was refused for one such previous nomination [33] , when her attempt to for speedy deletion was refused two time, she has now nominated the page for MfD [34], which you are already aware of, prior to filing for MfD she has attempted to messup with the article, here she is writing statements and adding reference tag also!! what is this ? I read about RFC about user's, but as a matter of policy i would not like to get involved in matters related to people, rather then articles, but this disruption is causing me trouble in writing a balanced article. what can be done done about it ? Thanks --talk-to-me! (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your basic idea, of not getting overinvolved with personal conflict, is right, and just what I would advise. Simply concentrate on finding real 3rd party sources for people--it might help not to approach this by selecting a person and then looking for possible sources, , but rather finding a source, and adding information to all the articles for the people mentioned there. If the sources for an article are good enough, it will not be deleted. The problems come when they're borderline. DGG (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dark and Shattered Lands

A tag has been placed on Dark and Shattered Lands, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Dark and Shattered Lands and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. I'm trying to make it fit in with an encyclopedic format as much with Wikipedia standards as possible. I'll remove or change anything you ask me to in order to give this the best chance that I can. I will need some time to make changes, but I will try to get them in ASAP if you will give me a chance. I understand that advertising is not warranted here, but that is not my intent here. Rahennig (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

the history of this one is, shall we say, a little complicated. See the Deletion Review on it at [35]. DGG (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gooddays

Hi there. You issued Gooddays a final warning to stop tagging town articles and s/he has continued with the disruption:

• [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]

They have also been issued a number of warnings to use appropriate edit summaries; each warning has been ignored. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 16:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked for 2 hrs for gaming the system. Future blocks will be considerably longer if it resumes. DGG (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent reason. S/he is definitely testing our patience. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've created a thread about his behaviour on AN, your comments are appreciated. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

A thanks such as this probably does not happen often here, but I wish to give you an honest thank you for your oppose on my RfA. I respect all editors/admins here, but you an admin in particular, I have a lot of respect for. So I have taken your advice (of which others have given as well) seriously and have already put it into practice: [41], [42]. (The second of which I removed my entry after Philippe responded.) I hope I can improve from here on out. Once again, thanks. Happy editing. =) -WarthogDemon 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Everyone liked you; you just need more directed experience. I find it useful to re-read the key policy pages every once in a while--I always find something I had not previously fully noticed. DGG (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias in Notability

Hey,

So a couple of weeks ago someone mentioned that I had gotten into wikipedia. I was both amused and alarmed. The article has since been deleted. I have no real issues with that, I mean I know that First Nations Canadian Novelists are a dime a dozen. I do have an issue with something I'd like you to examine as a bias on your part. You cite my undergraduate status as a reason for endorsing deletion. Now, that is a little presumptuous. Author birthdate is given as 1969 - that's almost a whopping 39 - so I find it interesting that since it's an entry for a novelist, that attaining a degree in CS/Math at a later point in life should count against one. You made some assumptions about the education and qualifications of the person you were deleting based on a somewhat nebulous criterion.

I have, as a matter of fact, a fair amount of formal training in Creative Writing, having studied under Richard Van Camp in the Creative Writing Program at UBC.

Anyway, I really just wanted to ask that when it comes to artists in general, you don't go all Ivory Tower on them.

cll —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.78.195 (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not certain who you are. If I referred to you as an undergraduate it is because I understood one of the sources to say so--yes, we judge notability of creative writers by their published work, not their degrees or their age. If the novels become notable I hope someone will write the article. DGG (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Church of Google

Hi David - Please look at this AfD close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (3rd nomination) and some other conversation links User talk:The Placebo Effect#The Church of Google and User talk:Becksguy#Re:Church of Google, and offer some advise, if you would. Do you agree that the closing did not follow consensus as established in the AfD, or not. And do you advise a DRV or not. I think that every item in the nomination and all the delete arguments were successfully answered and refuted. The closer did not take my complied list within the AfD into account, a list that was in far better shape than the article references and that had been pruned and shaped based on input during the deletion discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I second Becksguy's concerns. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but that one was clearly a no consensus at worst. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought, LGRdC. No consensus at worst. — Becksguy (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A very surprising closing. A good admin, who merely made a mistake. Can't figure out why he simply didn't choose to correct it.DGG (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what are you all saying? He just applied wikipedia's notability rules, after all wikipedia is not a WP:DEMOCRACY. Vote counting and claiming consensus are not substitutes for following policies that have had huge amount of community consensus thrown at them for a long period of time until they adquired their current shape.

Also, notice the very first paragraph from Wikipedia:Deletion_policy consists of a single sentence: "The Wikipedia deletion policy describes how pages which do not meet the relevant content criteria are identified and removed from Wikipedia.". On the deletion discussion section, this gets hammered upon "Here, (on the nomination debates) editors who wish to participate can give their opinion on what should be done with the page. These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.". A bit later, it talks about consensus, but then it links to Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus where it says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted" (the word "not" is emphasized on the policy page, I didn't add any emphasis).

I'm afraid that the consensus on a nomination for deletion is about how the article complies with deletion criteria or not, and not about wether many people thought that it would be OK to keep the page. In this case, the article failed notability criteria, so it was a clear delete, and the admin acted correctly. Going to deletion review without providing additional sources would be gaming the system by faking victimism: "the bad admin deleted my page against consensus". No, he deleted the page following wikipedia policies, and he would have acted wrongly if he had done otherwise, and he would have failed his duty as admin.

Finally, if you think that these policies are wrong and that there are better ways to decide deletion, then you should go to the policies talk pages and suggest improvements. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole "democracy" versus "consensus" thing is actually somewhat contradictory. You cannot have consensus without some kind of majority of support. Thus, if a majority of editors want to keep an article on a website billed as the one that anyone can edit and the sum total of human knowledge, we should not appeal to some minority or narrow viewpoint of the project. That is just illogical and inconsistent with what "consensus" actually means. More editors believe the article merits inclusion. Thus, the consensus of the community is that the article be kept. Those advocating inclusion tend to actually work on improving the article. Those voting to delete did what to help the article? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion decisions don't use "consensus" in the sense you seem to give to the term, they use rough consensus, which I quoted on my comment, and which says clearly that some arguments, the ones going against policies among others, "are frequently discounted". Please see my quotes and read the linked page before trying to say again that "consensus" is on your side on a deletion debate, since wikipedia policies say that it's not, and admins know it. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Enric, I think you misunderstand the proper, limited, role of administrators. We do not judge articles, just evaluate the results of a discussions. We do not decide if an article meets notability criteria, we decide if the consensus at the article thinks it did. Our discretion is just to disregard irrelevant arguments, such as I like it. When I became an admin, I was asked to promise I would not close on the basis of what I personally thought notable; it had not occurred to be that I would ever want to do so, for I would surely be reversed at Deletion Review. Let's continue this there. DGG (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

(Damn, I'm technically away, but I couldn't resist answering here) Yeah, that's what I meant, but I disagree on how the consensus is interpreted. He just judged the weight of the arguments behind the votes and decided not to take many of the votes into account because they were not valid keep reasons according to deletion policies, or based on false assumptions about the last nomination debate. He also decided the consensus by looking at the strenght of the remaining arguments, and not at the head count, just like the policies say. Let's make this clear (time to abuse the bolding again) Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus says that Wikipedia policy, (which requires WP:V, WP:OR, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV) is not negotiable. The admin claimed that the article was in breach of the notability policy, and arguments from editors didn't convince him that this was not true, so he had to decide a delete. That's why I say that he appears to have acted correctly. Head count can not superseed policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. The "non-negotiable" mutation is spreading. Well, thank goodness Wikipedia:consensus is policy, and Wikipeida:non negotiable does not even have a page. Said paragraph has been taken out and shot. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

lol, Kim, please don't take this that I am going to tell you as an insult. How about if I tell you that you haven't actually read WP:CONSENSUS, because the you would have noticed that in the exceptions section it says exactly what I have been saying here. I quote "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline".

As you see, a small consensus on a deletion nomination is just not going to override a policy or a guideline just like that. Saying that a certain idea has the consensus necessary to override a policy is an obvious fallacy, since if you actually had all that consensus then you could just go to the policy page and request that the policy be changed to acommodate the consensus.

If you look at WP:PILLARS you will also see that consensus is part of the "code of conduct" pillar, while verifiability is part of the "encyclopedia". As a rule of thumb, I consider that any user saying that a part of one pillar can override a part of another pillar is probably wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

perhaps this discussion would be more productive elsewhere. its not as if we were likely to settle it between us. I'll end this thread by summarizing my general views on the most general issues: The difficult questions at Wikipedia are where policies appear to conflict. Though these conflicts could be regarded as productive of discord, I see them more as leading to flexibility. It is multiple discussions on detail that change consensus. Policy is explanatory of what we agree to do at WP, not forced on us from above. DGG (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you are right, I got carried away trying to "win" the argument. Thanks for reacting so well and fairly. I guess we can go over these issues sometime on the future on some DRV, and they I'll watch my words more and try to be more respectful --Enric Naval (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Final comment from R_Physicist (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please note my final comments on the User talk:R_physicist page. R_Physicist (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good save

Nice save on AfD. I was able to expand it in some detail today. Hopefully it meets any and all guidelines now. MrPrada (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rescue from Deletion Barnstar For fine fine working rescuing Jon Cohen. MrPrada (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I had some lingering doubts, but you seem to have taken care of them very thoroughly. The problems aren't basically at AfD. They are with people who see someone in the news, and put in a hopelessly inadequate article without even using Google. Of course, people should check Google themselves before trying to delete, but I can see why it's so tempting to make the assumption that if there was anything to say, the guy who started the article would have said it. If it's worth writing an article, it's worth taking responsibility for doing it adequately. And thus people like you and I get stuck with it instead of working on our own things. DGG (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wording things

Thanks for the suggestion there. I try to word things politely, but it seems that sometimes I sound like a jerk without knowing it. And I assume you meant future RfA, not AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to archive your talk page, it's getting looooooong. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC) yes, of course. Good luckj when your'rerealy ready. DGG (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tara C. Smith

Anon who has been frequently warned for disruptive behavior just did a driveby AfD on this which we previously saved. Can you give me a hand? Thanks. --Filll (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

just did a Prod, as is anyone's right and it has already been removed. I'll check for other stuff s/he may have done. DGG (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Seems nothing really disruptive other than that. One or two decent edits among the problems. Let me know if there's more. It's an individual account, so can be blocked again.DGG (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Newsletter: Issue VII (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Universities newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you for your continued support of WikiProject Universities! —Delivered on 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

The Organ Review of the Arts

Your edit summary says "If it was notable it remains notable" -- I could be missing something, but I don't think it was ever established that it was notable to begin with. I'm putting a "notability" tag on it, we'll see what comes of that. -Pete (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

it seemed to have published some notable people, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I agree that it needs further information. DGG (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair nuff. WP:ORE is actually pretty tuned in to the notability tag these days, so I suspect it'll receive whatever attention it needs. -Pete (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Immediate and present danger to the project

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ashley Y/Userbox/Believes in Allah

DGG, because you have already commented on this, my question here would be minimally disruptive. This MfD is quite different from earlier discussions about, say, the alleged pictures of Muhammad, which, as you may know, was quite disruptive on-wiki and even more disruptive off. Unlike that case, which was not about something actually central to Islam, on the one hand, and which *was* about something central to the project, this MfD is claiming that the very foundation of Islam is offensive and disruptive. This has the potential to seriously damage the project. This MfD probably should have been listed in the list of Islam-related deletions, but I've held off because it could set off a firestorm.

I'm going to be looking at how I can contact someone involved with oversight, because there are Foundation issues here. While I suspect that the AfD will result in Keep, even the debate could be quite divisive. And should it result in Delete, and you know how unpredictable that is, the damage could become irreparable even if it is later restored.

If there is going to be a discussion of this, it should be before a more reliable forum than MfD. And, frankly, my suggestion would be not to discuss it at all. This kind of interference in user space is bad enough, but where it has the potential to trigger massive sectarian dispute, it is positively poisonous. At the very least, I'd suggest, the MfD should be protected to allow some time to consider the issues. Or speedy closed as keep, to establish a default. A DRV, if it was only allowed to result, at most, in a re-opening of a speedy closed MfD, rather than in Delete, could then be opened. Otherwise the immediate threat of a deletion could bring down massive negative publicity in certain areas of the world.--Abd (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're petitioning an admin who already voted keep to speedy close this. That's not going to happen, because DGG is smarter than that. And your take on this is far more alarmist than necessary. Similar userboxes have been brought to MfD before without any lasting disruption other than DRV postings. This deletion discussion will continue just like any other. There's no reason to treat it any differently. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:33, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Right, and quite apart from that, nobody could really close it as a keep (or a delete) at this point, and it wouldn't make sense to close anything as no consensus after just one day's discussion. I don't think the discussion at MfD has become disruptive, and we can't close debates because they might become disruptive, or we'd have no XfDs at all. . Anyway, I agree with Equazcion that MfD is a suitable place to discuss the issue. Perhaps we will reach agreement. If not, and people feel strongly enough to want to continue, the discussion can be considered elsewhere, either for this box in particular or religious belief boxes in general. Equazcion, though, you really might want to rethink your view on this--go look at some userboxes. And, Abd, you shouldn't try to try to explain the names of God in a purely etymological fashion; they mean what the believers intend them to mean. DGG (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with DGG below, that's exactly correct. I'm totally aware that, by the rules, DGG can't do what I suggest with the MfD. That is why I brought this to his attention. There are other administrators I could ask to look at this, but it starts to become canvassing. Because he has already !voted, it would not ordinarily affect the outcome, avoiding canvassing. I also wrote to Jimbo Wales. There are other options, I mention this in the MfD. I could add this to the Wikiproject list, it's appropriate there, it is an Islam-related deletion; though that is intended for articles, it could apply to user space as well. I could raise this on AN/I, which would ordinarily be the appropriate forum. But what is being missed here is that the very existence of the MfD, on the specific issues being discussed there, could be externally harmful to Wikipedia. Were there a critical issue involved, well, sometimes you've gotta go ahead. There is no critical issue here, rather, there is what I would call a hostile interpretation of the userbox text -- which is actually customizable by user -- such that it is taken to mean something that would be offensive to most Muslims, which is then rejected as offensive to others. And this is an issue that should not be examined in a hot context like MfD, but, as suggested by DGG, perhaps about userboxes in general. My hope was that DGG might help negotiate something here, or, alternatively, that he could call in another administrator or take this up the informal hierarchy. I don't know who is on IRC, specifically. Later today, if this is not resolved, I'll do what I can to raise *confined* attention to the MfD and the implications.--Abd (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's basically OTHERCRAPEXISTS though, isn't it? If there are other userboxes that make a factual assertion about god this way, I'd vote the same way if any of them were nominated. The fact that others exist is inconsequential. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:33, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

That only applies if it's Crap. Statements about political and religious belief are not crap, and a view that it is illegitimate to express them can be seen as denigrating wikipedians. However, I gather you are not then opposed to this particular userboxes but them all, including "This user is a Christian", "this user is an atheist," and "this user is a Republican"? What about ones identity can be expressed in a userbox, in your opinion? Sexuality? education? national origin? If you oppose them all, come and say so, instead of saying that this particular box is a problem. I'm not attacking you, but I do want to debate the true issue. DGG (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against most of those. First of all, OTHERCRAPEXISTS is just short form for summing up another person's "keep" rationale as "why delete this when your rationale can apply to other things". It doesn't have to be "crap" per se. In other words: I say I think this should be deleted because it makes an offensive claim about god. You say other boxes make the same claims, ergo my rationale is invalid. I say not so -- other similar things existing isn't a defense for this to exist.

As for what I'm against, it's not the statement of belief, but the particular wording here. As I said at the deletion discussion, I wouldn't care about this if it said "This user is Muslim" or "This user believes in god", or even, "This user believes that allah is the only god". The wording in this userbox is arrogant. It makes a steadfast declaration of fact, as if to say this person's belief is the only possible correct belief one can have. That's where the infalamation comes in. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:59, 31 Mar 2008 (UTC)

(ec)::The problem is much more complex than that, and it deserves to be discussed. I'm saying that, aside from that discussion, as matters stand, if the existence of this MfD becomes known more broadly, while it is still open, or, worse, if it closes as Delete, Wikipedia *will* be trashed, seriously and severely. I know the Muslim community. I was -- and am technically still -- moderator of the usenet newsgroup soc.religion.islam, and these issues aren't new for me, I know them intimately. I know how far too many Muslims will respond. Again, if there is a critical issue, core to the project, it could be worth fighting the battle. Here, the issue is actually a radical misinterpretation of the userbox text, one that essentially assumes bad faith on the part of the user, as if the user was saying "Your God is not God." While it is certainly possible that an individual user means that, this is not the credo. It is more like, "There is no separate personal god, there is only God." Another way of looking at it is that there is Reality, one reality. Look, I can say it in Arabic, I can say it in Sanskrit, and I can say it in English. Truth is One, sages call it various names. Claiming that the text in that userbox is offensive is, in fact, *attacking* the central tenet of Islam, the founding principle, the unity of reality. It is saying that Allah is not a name of the one god, known also by other names, it is claiming that Allah is just a particular name, the name used by a sect, a distinct religion, different from other religions. Islam is a religion which came at the transition into modern times, and the concept of universal reality, it could be argued, was introduced by Islam, though certainly Jesus was saying the same thing. It becomes very explicit in the Qur'an.

What I've said is indeed a point of view, but one based on extensive discussion and long debate, and I'm not a casual commentator, I'm somewhere between an informed Muslim and a true credentialled expert. What I asserted as Islamic theology was not mere etymology, it is quite solid. The edges of my interpretation of it would be considered extreme by some, even many, Muslim scholars, but not by others. That is, I do interpret "believer" in such a way as to include nominal atheists, agnostics, and even polytheists *if* they do believe in a single reality; the disagreements are over names and attributes. If that is the case, their "polytheism" is on the surface, a matter of theology, not of the heart, just as for Christians to believe in the Trinity doesn't meant that they believe there are three gods. As a Muslim, I certainly would not affirm that triune God, but they are not judged by the standards that apply to me.

However, the issue here, the sky-is-falling level of this, is not about my POV. It is about the very real possibility that a deletion debate on this topic, in this way, could have, all by itself, disastrous and irreparable consequences for Wikipedia as a world project. If somehow the MfD escapes outside attention, a reasonable possibility that is fast fading, fine. If the userbox is deleted, it could be brought back, or some compromise negotiated. But, right now, I can see the headlines: Wikipedia Deletes the Affirmation of Faith in Islam. Users not Allowed to State It. And once those headlines exist, it will be very difficult to erase or prevent the consequences. Hence I am suggesting that this is a true IAR emergency, the welfare of the project is potentially at stake. And I am trying to address it in the least disruptive way. If that fails, I will at least be able to say, if I am asked, I tried.--Abd (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The wording is customizable for the userbox, if I am correct. The statement is actually a definition of Allah. To call it a "fact" -- or alleged fact -- is misleading. It states what the word means. To assert that it is a divisive sectarian statement is precisely what is offensive. Enough said, here, there is little time to waste on petty arguments.--Abd (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

this is divisive only if one insists on making it so. I have a view on the general issue, and I have sufficiently expressed it: people may express anything with their userboxes that is not actively denigrating to another. On the particular, I do not see this as such, by even the widest interpretation. It is a person praising their God and their religion, positive matters entirely. To be bothered by this user box is looking very hard indeed for difficulties. to be bothered by the very discussion, even more so. In wishing to avoid drama it is more likely to induce it. Let the discussion return to the MfD, where it belongs. In response to repeated requests, I am about to do some archiving. DGG (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

SPOV Question

Hi there DGG - I asked a question in response to yours, and I'm afraid that it's gotten lost in the hubbub on the talk:NPOV page. I'm reposting it here because, rather than the question being a rhetorical argument, I'm looking to get your practical input. I can't answer this question, myself, right now, and I'm looking to your experience for some guidance. Here is the question, in part: I think that what you are saying largely works - but there are specific instances where I think there would still be trouble. For example, I'd be interested to get your thoughts regarding some fringe-science articles where no SPOV material has been published on the subject. What would be a fair presentation of SPOV for such a subject, keeping in mind WP:NOR? In other words, there is new stuff coming from the fringe every day (and by fringe, I mean to include both the stuff that is "garbage" and the stuff that, after community examination, ultimately becomes folded into the mainstream). I'm not sure how to present material like this without either (a) giving it undue weight by presenting it in a vacuum of other ideas, or (b) performing original research and comparing it in some way to the mainstream. This may not be the best formulation of the problem as I see it, but it gets across my basic concern. Thanks, Antelan^talk 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied to this yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view; I see your comments there, and I will continue there in more detail. But to summarize, this is a recurrent and difficult question. Basically, there is almost always some SPOV material available. It's OK if it takes 5 paragraphs to present an absurd idea so it makes as much sense as it's going to make, with one paragraph at the end to give the information that shows to any reasonable person that it's nonsense (along with having this also in the lede paragraph) Balance doesnt have to be measured in words. It doesn't after all take much science to clarify most of this stuff. If the SPOV is the valid one and well presented, anyone not committed to the idea will understand after even a short presentation. In fact, strategically it's even better.

So the problem shows up mainly where there's no science at all Most of the time, either t here is not enough pseudoscience to make it notable as such, in which case we don't need an article on it at all, or it is so ridiculous that just explaining it makes it clear what the status is. Nobody thinks wee endorse the ideas in our articles.DGG (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)