User talk:DGG/Archive 11 Dec. 2007

The November 2007 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! Noetic Sage 19:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the more I look at this the more I'm convinced G3 is appropriate. It is an obvious hoax meant to be offensive, wouldn't you agree? — Coren ^(talk) 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought of using G3, so I went & did it and warned the ed. DGG (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always do appreciate it. There are certain conventions and such around here that always seem to get me when it comes to speedies. I do read every article and make a call. Sometimes they are borderline so I tag them for refs, expansion, etc and leave them alone. Others such as PTC I read, research, and make a call. Companies I am a bit more stringent about as we seem to be spammed everyday by one or another (see Cinume for an example of a borderline I prodded). Anyway, thanks again! spryde | talk 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind offer to do some research into my father, but I really think that that would be flogging a dead horse. He was made an MBE for acting as honorary treasurer to some local charities. He may have got a paragraph in the local press at the time but certainly nothing more. I think your time would be better spent continuing your excellent work in defending genuinely notable articles from some of our trigger-happy new page patrollers and admins.

My comment in the AfD wasn't meant to imply any lack of notability for Pat Haikin, but if want to look for sources you would probably do better to concentrate on the Hoxton Apprentice rather the MBE. That restaurant certainly got some media coverage when it opened and I'm sure it deserves an article of its own, but I don't know if Pat Haikin's involvement was enough to make her personally notable. Phil Bridger 11:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comment on my rhetorical device--I apologize for using what may be seen as satyrical comment. I realize about MBEs, though it's probably best not to give a personal illustration. People have used that sort of argument otherwise--e.g. "I'm a professor, and I'm not worth an article." --some of them have been & for some articles have been written and gotten to stick. Looking more carefully, she was principal of what might be a major secondary school, which must be why she got the MBE--and such can in fact be notable--both I suppose for a MBE and sometimes for WP. I'm not really in a good location to do research on UK local history. I'll comment further at the AfD. DGG (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... I've just begun patrolling new pages so that's why I might tag them wrongly (though I'm sure I wouldn't tag a really good page wrongly) but I left them open so I would learn from the comments of the admins who visit the pages like you did.

Now, concerning Urdu_journalist - shouldn't that be renamed at least? I'm not exactly sure how I would do that though... 'move'? I'm in doubt because I read that it would still make the previous title a redirect (and I guess they're usually used to rename some capitalizations etc.)

And... er, is it time to archive your talk page? O_o -- Mentifisto 03:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes that article needs to be moved to the name of the guy; but it seems there is already an article there--he seems to have written two, so I will delete this one as housekeeping since it would, as you say-not be a useful redirect. As for archiving, yes, i guess the end of the month has come. DGG (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification... and yeah, the end of the month sure came (although I notice that there are messages from other months too) leaving this talk page bigger than the help desk. :-p -- Mentifisto 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering, I try to leave all active discussions up. I may have to go to twice a month, or use a subpage for the ones with graphics attached. I hate bots, by the way, they always get it wrong, & i'd rather do it wrong all by myself. DGG (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay... I'm not an expert myself on archiving since I don't have to use it yet although I was looking into mizsabot and whatnot... you wouldn't recommend them? -- Mentifisto 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is intrinsically no way of optimally keeping everything important visible, and simultaneously keeping it organized--therefore the great variety in interface and information system designs, none of them perfect. Experiment until you find what seems to fit the way you work, and be prepared to change it as you go along. I like experimenting, but if you dont want to think about the whole problem, just use one of the bots. DGG (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can use different ways alternately? There won't be conflicts or anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentifisto (talk • contribs) 04:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC) -- not alternately--in succession,with planning. One of the problems with experimenting on this is that it takes quite a while to see results and make a transition. I have a sort of a professional interest in information systems. if you dont want to get involved, don't think you have to. If you want to get involved, see what different people have done. There is no simple good way to do anything interesting, so you have to pick what you think worth the effort personally. DGG (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for everything then. :-) -- Mentifisto 05:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of the duplicate. I didn't have time to fix it, but I didn't want it to stay up. People don't read or do any research and just go ahead and create articles. I will have a new, correct article up shortly. Einbierbitte 14:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked that you re-examine your logic on the relevant talk page. All academics are published - being published is neither notable, nor an assertion of such notability. --Cheeser1 11:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

asserted notability as an author: 5 published books, two by Princeton university press. I don't consider this even borderline as an assertion enough for speedy. Discussed further on the article tall pageDGG (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, perhaps this was a case of speed tagging and moving on. Sorry, but I have a lot opf personal things going on, including my mother's final illness and death. I don't think this will pass either, but I don't see how to speedily delete an article that asserts notability about a real school. So it goes to AfD Bearian 15:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 5-day prod is acceptable. Cause it gives the creators 5 days to fix it. Bearian 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thats what I usually do for articles like this. -- someone speedied, you added hangon, & i did the prod as they arent a high school. I deprod high schools when I see them, but a great many people seem to be prodding elementary schools, & I usually leave them alone if they're like this. It would be better to construct school district articles, but I dont have the time. That I might have speedied a school for notability--I hope I dont work when I'm quite that sleepy.DGG (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bertazzoni-Italia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bertazzoni-Italia. Thank you. Hi, long time no talk. Hope all's well. :-) Carlossuarez46 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll probably end up putting them up for AfD. I should've in the first place, but I didn't because I was lazy :) Justinm1978 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, Here is the consensus [1] for removing the split pages. Community felt that it didn't make sense to split only NY's, just because it was the biggest congressional delegation page. And that its the purpose of these pages to record the entire congressional delegation.

 The pages to be deleted are:

• [United States Congressional Delegations from New York 1851 to 1915 (House)]
• [United States Congressional Delegations from New York 1789 to 1851 (House)]
• [United States Congressional Delegations from New York 1915 to Present (House)]

They were only split for about 3 weeks, so I'm not seeing any redirect issues. If we wanted to leave the split pages as redirect, I guess we could, but only some random AlexNewArtBot generated "Links Here" stuff.

I think there are still some issues with the fact that the entire delegation page uses different party terms than the House or Senate pages (POV-forking?), but that is an issue for a different time. And at over 300K I believe, its one of those pages that will crash my relatively fast computer that we should avoid having, but eh. Thanks for the housekeeping. Mbisanz 05:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By these other comments, I can see you have your hands full, but it has been a week since a response has been up on the talk page. I would appreciate if you would consider the following. IMO, the NPOV tag should be removed. This article has already been rewritten a handful of times to present a neutral tone. If you're looking for more criticism of this subject, I would argue that, at least from reputable sources, it is rather scant (as I said on the talk page, he is rather new on the scene). Instead, what you have are people with a very personal problem with the subject of the bio. If you look through the history there have been multiple below-the-belt attempts to deface this bio. These are not "concerned Wikipedians." These are users who put up pictures of Hitler, post extended court proceedings, make crude sexual references (this happened two or three times), etc. If you want to talk to me about this further and how we can move forward, I would certainly appreciate it. My email is paa2013 at med.cornell.edu or you can just respond on the talk page. Palbert 17:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied on talk page. I'll look for further discussion there. DGG (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to do exactly the same thing! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You declined speedy G4 on Miliefsky. Fair enough. I want to make sure you're aware that the original article, Gary Miliefsky, was salted after its subject made legal threats about editors about it. There's an AfD debate about it here; I don't think it will survive again, but I'm happy to renominate it.

--- tqbf 02:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stupidly enough, i missed the previous afd. But I see there is at least one substantial additional source, so it might as well go to afd again, rather than revert myself. DGG (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. If you think he merits an article, I understand (but do me a favor then: if any of my reasoning is faulty, let me know --- I do a lot of AfD'ing, and want to get better). Thanks for the help! --- tqbf 05:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

frankly, not being my subject, I don't know whether he's notable. I merely saw there were additional sources, but i cannot tell their significance. Go by what the community thinks--not by what I think. DGG (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find any sources? I couldn't. Would of course be notable if he actually did all the things claimed, but I'm not sure that he did. The only reason I can even be remotely sure that he exists is because he's linked from his (alleged) wife's page, which is why I didn't tag it as a hoax as well. Cheers, CP 05:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the relevant wiki project would be better able than I--why not notify them, and then if nothing is forthcoming from the experts, send to AfD.. DGG (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which wiki-project do you think would be most helpful? WP:BELARUS? WP:Biography? Some other one? Is there a like a WP:Arts? (WP:ART is a portal). I just really have no idea who to bring this to. Cheers, CP 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the portal talk pages can be used for notification if necessary, but I just notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_Art. As he left Belarus at the age of 5, I dont think that one is likely. There is a complete list at WP:PROJECT and a slightly different one at WP:WPRDGG (talk)

The December 2007 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 -- 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I have found a new source for the Leon Toubin article and have begun construction on a new article. Do you know how I can get a copy of the last deleted article for Leon Toubin. Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just emailed it to you. DGG (talk)

DGG, there is an edit war going on at Joseph Schlessinger‎. It started with two editors (Truther thruther and Letsnotlie), but now a third name pops up, likely a sockpuppet (Hillhealth). I have put 3RR warnings on the talk pages of these editors, but they just ignore and keep reverting each other with sometimes dozens of edits an hour. The contentious material concerns allegations about sexual harassment. I reported this BLP issue at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, but nothing seems to happen. Is there another place where I should report this activity? Thanks, Wim --Crusio 22:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren protected it for 7 days a little while ago. That gives people a little while to resolve it. Ask him to lift the block when things settle down. 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC) I hope my subsequent comments there did not confuse the issue further. DGG (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, feel free to restore the commented out section if you feel it necessary, but I think that given its contents being the cause of the edit war, waiting for some sort of consensus to emerge is safer. Those are just my two currency subunits, however, and I won't wheel war over you for this. — Coren ^(talk) 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, I too want to wait for additional comments. I gave my view on the talk page, and now lets see what other think. If more sources appear, that may settle it. I feel no need to rush--I already made one mistake there by going too quickly. And it's clear from the article that in this instance the sex may not even be the most bitterly fought part of it.DGG (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for being obtuse, but I am unclear what your position is. Monica Goodling is listed vis-a-vis her involvement in the Attorneygate controversy -- she is listed in the alumni section. The issue here is whether, in addition to that mention, a discussion involving her resignation and involvement in the scandal deserves a place in the Reputation section concerning the school. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 07:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no such discussion in the present version. I recognize it is alluded to in some of the references. I do not see that as problematic. What exactly am I missing? DGG (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being unclear. There is no other mention -- that is the issue at hand. Should there be? The pros and cons were discussed here but the RfC nicely summarizes the two positions. With your additional comments on the talk page, I now understand your take on it. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 01:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DDG: when you get a chance, could you please take a look at talk page again on Joseph Schlessinger? I'd be interested in hearing your honest thoughts on the sexual harassment section (content item #3)? It's all from legitimate news sources and publications, including Yale University publications. You made some commentary before, so I thought I'd invite you back. letsnotlie is sort of throwing a fit about it,.... Thanks for your time!Truther truther 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. I assume you have also asked Coren for further comments.But do not attempt to determine or post the name of a WP ed. who uses a pseudonym. DGG (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DDG: I though I'd run this past you before posting to the joseph schlessinger page. Per your request, I've posted the courant article to his talk page and edited the section to read as follows. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. ThanksTruther truther (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) alleged Joseph Schlessinger initiated numerous conversations with her about sex, showed her hard-core pornography websites and nude photographs, bragged to her about the number of women he had slept with, mentioned incidents of sexual infidelity during his business travels, told jokes about penis size, and commented on the size of her breasts and style of her underwear.^[1][2][3][4]

Further and more specific detail of the sexual harassment lawsuit taken from the testimony of Mary Beth Garceau regarding sexual infidelity, the number of women Joseph Schlessinger claims to have slept with and the nude photography that was shown, are not suitable for Wikipedia, but may be found by clicking on the following links for articles on websites for The Yale Daily News as well as CBS News

Garceau claims that Yale University did nothing to stop the sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign because of the situation. A spokesperson for Yale University initially told the Yale Daily News in an interview that "they'll fight the suit in court."^[5] Several months later on however, the case was settled out of court and the terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public. ^[6][7]

glad you asked

I've rewritten it below. The objection raised on the talk page to putting the details of the harassment in the WP article was perfectly correct--this is not appropriate content as it is ultimately sourced only by her allegation--BLP would not permit it where the actual content was not a matter of public confession or guilty verdict or widespread reporting for a much more public figure. If anyone wants to know, it's in the references. Some of the references were duplicates; I removed them, keeping the better of the citations--the CBS for example is documented directly and it is not appropriate to give the indirect ref in globaldialysis. I do not think the EPS source is usable--its merely a news service run by a firm of employment attorneys. DGG (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint was initiated by Joseph Schlessinger's former secretary, (Mary Beth Garceau v. Yale University) alleged Joseph Schlessinger engaged in sexually-based harassment.^[8],^[9],^[10],^[11]

Garceau claims that Yale University did nothing to stop the sexual harassment despite her frequent complaints, forcing her to resign because of the situation. A spokesperson for Yale University initially told the Yale Daily News in an interview that "they'll fight the suit in court."^[12] Several months later on however, the case was settled out of court; the terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public. ^[13]

Really? That's the only thing that can be mentioned by wikipedia standards?? It really doesn't tell anything while the rest of the page goes into great detail about so many other things. I was under the impression that information could be summarized; I though Wikipedia was the place for that! Would the liberal use of the words "alleged" and "accused" make any difference?

True, it is only an allegation, but it is also a sworn deposition and a formal lawsuit. ultimately it will be your decision because I am new at this. Thanks. Truther truther (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC) It's quite enough for an encyclopedia:it's the appropriate summary. Remember, we still link to the sources. Anything else I think is a violation of BLP. If Coren or others disagree, I can reconsider.DGG (talk)[reply]

I was looking into this and a bunch of similar articles. Might not winning a national junior-level contest be a major music competition per WP:MUSIC # 9 ? There are quite a few articles on past national winners, such as Andrey Kunets. I'm not arguing OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but it seems to me this might need a bit more research and a group AFD. Gimmetrow 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I went too fast, and misread it; I thought it said that they dreamed they would someday represent the Netherlands... which is what the somewhat confused English in the article seemed to say. I checked the source, saw they did in fact represent the Netherlands, restored it and clarified the language. Whether this is notable is not for me to say, but it certainly does make a claim at least. DGG (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, now all the other similar articles have been deleted, except one, Trust (2007 band). I've raised the question here. At first glance, I would think most of these articles will never be more than stubs, and the descriptions should be merged with the multinational article. If they go on to independent notability (like Thor Salden, or the winners), then split them out. Gimmetrow 05:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at least whoever won the international competition would seem notable, there's good precedent for that in any subject if the contest gets any news reportage. Good luck following this up. DGG (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, DGG ... you did some cleanup of my PROD on Dr. Lewis Rigg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where I had left the language from a copy&paste of the CSD template in the 3rd Step of my brand new Warn-fiction protocol ... I just felt that

Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:FICT notability criteria.

was a Little Too generic ... I fixed the other two PRODs that I did on the same day, and corrected the date/time on this prod to the original values before your cleanup ... yeah, My Bad, but in general, do you approve of my "kinder, gentler" approach to deletions? (i.e., PROD as an alternative to CSD?) ... BTW, this editor's track record for NN articles is none too good, and I helped zap a bunch of bios for soap opera actors from A Land Down Under, so now I'm going after the cruftier stubs of fictional characters, like Martin Bartlett, who hasn't even appeared on-camera yet ... Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep at it! for non-notable fictional characters, Prod is a great way to go, as CSD is isn't permitted and AFDing them all is an absurd amount of work for everyone. If they are popular enough, someone will fix them while they are on prod. It also permits re-creation if the character later becomes notable as the series progresses--prods are always undeleted if someone requests it. But you might also want to consider something even simpler: changing to a redirect, with an edit summary like "changed to a redirect to avoid deletion". i find people rarely argue that one, and if they do, there is still Afd. By all means feel free to improve & expand my wording whenever you can do so. I will be very glad for anything you can do to help us see an end to the disputes over these articles.DGG (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I wrong? It's a copyright violation of the magazine's intellectual property. Corvus cornix_talk 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list, in and of itself, is copyrighted. Corvus cornix_talk 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and a/ can be reported on, just the the academy awards can be reported on. and b/ It's fair use, 1% of the total. It meets all 4 fair use test: factual prose, non-profit use, minute fraction oft he original, no influence on sales--since its free on the web. But lets not argue it privately--what vopyright discussion page do you think would be best? DGG (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've put a lot of work into figuring this site's issues out. Please feel free to chip in at this discussion:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, much obliged.[2] Durova^Charge! 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read your comments on the talk page of my dear friend,Striver. Thanks for your friendly advices , although he abandoned WP. I knew many former active members who aren't active at present. This may because of changing the situation which needs high quality standards or some other reasons. I hope there would be a process to recover wikipedians who are affected by Wikistress.

Thanks, I know what you mean, but I think we need something more. We need a guideline for Hadith taskforce. You see, there is a branch of Islamic knowledge which discuss about authenticity of Hadith. I didn't mean that Striver's articles were good. I just wanted to thank you due to your attention to him while most of us were unaware. --Seyyed(t-c) 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to jump into a thread, but I encountered User:Striver a year ago, around the time that my own WikiStress led me to abandon my active username and simply lurk as an anon-IP ... took me a while to find the account where we crossed swords, but the Good Thing about being anal-retentive is that I always leave a good paper trail. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.89.38 (talk · contribs) 01:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your RFC about Billy Hathorn. I am willing to help, not argue. Two AFDs are given as evidence of the dispute. However, the article (Glenn E. Ratcliff and another one) is deleted so I can't see it. Therefore, I cannot offer a fully informed opinion about Billy! Others may feel the same way but not let you know. If so, you won't get as many responses for the RFC. I am willing to consider adopting him but I haven't decided yet. I will be busy, especially for the next 2 weeks. Archtransit (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since the AfD discussion on Annie Jennings, where you voted "keep", has closed with a consensus to keep the article, I trust you will make some effort to add Reliable Sources to it? It has been unreferenced since creation. --Stormie (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) They have already been added by others--as I thought would be the case, there was no trouble finding them. DGG (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG. Thank you for not deleting Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. It is an acceptable stub. I think your judgement is great. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College, was decided to be kept. Whether or not you voted for this, your contribution to the CFD was valued.Thanks.--Sunderland06 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the minor edits. But the page is still mostly spam.. primarily from the PDF: http://www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/products/Compustat2006.pdf

The follow information is provided: The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) by Standard & Poor's and MSCI Barra Key market identifiers, such as CUSIP, NAICS, ISIN, SEDOL Monthly and daily pricing data Standard & Poor's and other leading Index Data Earnings data from Thomson I/B/E/S Corporate actions and company business descriptions Insider and Institutional holdings Standard & Poor's Stock Reports Standard & Poor's Industry Surveys Standard & Poor's ratings

has been directly copied from page 4 of the PDF

The Compustat Xpressfeed data subscription is Standard & Poor's premier product, regarded as the industry standard by the financial community, with daily transactional updates for more than 75,000 securities, including active and inactive North American and Global companies, pricing information and fundamental data for over 90% of the world's market cap. The Compustat Xpressfeed Loader, an add-on feature to the Xpressfeed data subscription, processes Compustat data into a relational database stored on a company server. Research Insight is an analytical software interface used to access and screen the Compustat database using a wide range of investment and financial criteria. Fully customizable and accessible through Microsoft Excel, it enables sophisticated financial modeling, backtesting, multiple regression, industry analysis, stock screening and stock selection. There are also custom services.

has been directly copied from page 8 of the PDF

This database provides a broad range of information solutions to assist institutional investors, bankers, advisors, analysts, and asset/portfolio managers across the corporate, M&A, private capital, equity, and fixed income markets. The database cover 75,000 securities, representing over 90% of the world's total market capitalization, and provides company data history back to 1950 (depending upon when that company was added to the database and/or when the data item itself was first added to the database.)

has been partly modified but is mostly a copy of information on page 2 of the PDF

The External Link at the bottom is simply a link to the Compustat product page. Bpossolo (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, after i finished, I started wondering about that, and I will rewrite those sections also, since the importance of the database make it worth the doing. But I'd think an external link to the product page is appropriate, rather than giving the details in the article. the database is discussed , so there should be some references. DGG (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, just wondering if you are still planning on removing the rest of the spam. Benjamin -Bpossolo (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• possible spam removed, thanks, & abbreviated generally. Still need to find third party refs. they are one of the three major dbs in the field. DGG (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, much obliged.[3] Durova^Charge! 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to you characterizing this merge as "an attempt to by the merger to singlehandedly reverse the clear consensus." I performed that redirect on the advice of administrators in both the 2nd AFD[4] and the DRV[5] [6]. I actually went to DRV instead of immediately making the redirect upon first being given the advice to redirect.

I cannot quite explain in WP:CIVIL language what I think about your representing me in this way. If you reply to me and I don't respond promptly, please understand there are some things I am trying very hard not to call you. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the wording I used, because in fact I had the sequence wrong--I had it Afd1 DRV AfD2, when I see it was AfD1, AfD2, DRV. What you did was justified, and not at all an attempt to reverse the decision. I certainly was wrong to characterize it as one--this was my mistake entirely--probably from working too late at night. My heartfelt apologies.

But nonetheless I interpreted and interpret the result totally differently from you. I reverted as a preliminary to adding back the material, which I did not have time to do last night. As I see it there were two acceptable courses: either redirect since the different content had been removed, or re-add the content. You and Mangojuice agreed to do it one way, but nobody else. But I do not see any consensus for removal of it--the earlier history of the talk page for Tokyo in popular culture was lost in the merge, and the edit history of the article seems to show a unilateral deletion by Mangojuice. The DRV was based on accepting that, but I see no necessary reason to accept it if the material; could be sourced instead.

But I agree that there is no reason to keep it without the content--and upon looking at the content, I see I overestimated my ability to rapidly add it back, because most of it deals with material that I in fact have no familiarity with, and not all of which is in a language I even read. Probably most of it can be sourced, but not by me. Someone else will have to add back the appropriate part of the material, and then split the article again. More easily, given the amount of potential material, it will be better to construct a somewhat different page (or two) entirely under another name or names. , but i must leave it to the people who can work with the media. So, for convenience here and to avoid a pointless conflict. I will accept your merge if you do it, and I will refer on the talk page to the discussion here. I continue to disagree with you and Mangojuice about this type of material, but I should not have rashly undertaken to work intensively with material primarily in a language I do not yet understand. DGG (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be worth an AfD? Seems like his awards are all school-specific and all sources are self-sources. You know more about academics so I figured I'd check. I'll watch here. Mbisanz (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some of them are outside fellowships, but only at a doctoral or post-doc level. He has published a number of modestly important reports, but few peer reviewed papers. He is not really a notable academic. But see his web page at [7] & read his bio. I'd be reluctant to push deleting this one.DGG (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy. "very small" by itself is not a reason for speedy. Please tag only according to WP:CSD. Forthis one, give it time to expand, and if it isn't, then use AfD. DGG (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I was tagging it as A1/A3, for little content and no context for expansion, but I realize where it is contested it is better to let the article some time to grow, and perhaps consider it for AFD later. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your follow-up question on my RFA. I have replied and welcome your comments and constructive criticism. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have again replied to your further discussion at my RFA on your follow-up question, as you requested. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your two additional follow-up questions. I have replied at my RFA. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG. I appreciate your participation in my RFA, by providing additional questions. I have noticed that you have not !voted, so I wondered if you were satisfied with my answers, and if there was anything else you would want to ask before making a decision on the matter. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for taking the time to !vote at my RFA. I understand your point, and if my RFA suceeds, I will work especially hard at ensuring that your concerns are addressed. I agree that the minor xfd's also need attention and sometimes go unattended for too long. Your periodic feedback would be welcome and appreciated. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've put a lot of work into figuring this site's issues out. Please feel free to chip in at this discussion:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam?

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, much obliged.[8] Durova^Charge! 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all the TES articles, including the ones that were good and sourced, just got wiped out by admins. See problem is, hardly a consensus was reached, most articles tied keep v delete and everybody seems to blindly following the mantra that it isn't notable because it isn't on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. These articles should be reopened and the discussion should continue, I thought progress on a compromise was being made until they were deleted. They seemed to jump to deletion instead trying to improve or establish notability, in fact not one of them even tried to find something that suggested notability, I did but no one cared. Please A little help would be great. Articles deleted so far, Black Marsh, Morrowind (province), Cyrodiil.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC) The best strategy here will be to concentrate on saving the ones not yet deleted. Try to save a few. Deletion review can be undertaken if there ever is consensus; at the moment it will just open up too many fronts. Please see the talk page for WP Fiction for the current almost total lack of agreement. I'm not at this point sure there is any common idea at all on what the policy is or ought to be. I also suggest joining in the discussion there--my current position you will see, but it amounts to an admission that we have no agreement. But the people who like the currently one-sided wording are trying to deny it there is even conflict, and are finding themselves fighting to say that there isnt any. DGG (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are saying, I'm fighting the deletions tooth and nail, but I don't care that much about some the remaining ones. Cyrodiil was one best articles and it got deleted despite heavy resistance, it was 6 vs 6 in keep/delete. I don't know if there is anything I can do, I keep saying that we can work together to improve the articles to be like argonian but they don't seem confident it can be done.TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that the best chances for deletion review are the combination articles on minor characters, etc. If you think Cryodil is sourceable further, good, but I must tell you i havent the least idea of where video games are written about, though Im trying to learn. I do know there is no point whatever going to DR without a very strong case. 6-6 in something like this is not alone sufficient to say it should be nonconsensus unless you can prove the ones discarded as not according to policy were according to policy. You might want to enable your email or use mine, by the way. I cannot handle adequately more than a few concurrent discussions. DGG (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Mike, you'll need to find a better source for the plagiarism accusation. Not that i disbelieve it necessarily, but it still needs a real source. DGG (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Bob Park is not sufficient? The accusation itself is quoted in the controversy section of the article. Note that matters of belief don't enter here - despite Stolper's original research, which I distrust. All we can do is to note that the accusation was made, which we have done. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a person's web page is not a source for accusations about another person, direct or indirect, per WP:BLP. A wise policy, IMO, since they are self-published sources, and one can put anything there. If Park actually published it somewhere, in a third party RS, then that could be used. DGG (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and raising an issue that has been bothering me as well. In response I've raised the issue of removing the "Neutral terms" column from the chart on the article talk page. Would your OR concerns still be active if that column is removed? Please respond on the AfD. Thanks, Egfrank (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC) I've commented; I really wish I could think of a way to keep the article, since you have done a very good job of itDGG (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There really are sources for that Messianic column, not to mention at least two academically acredited MDiv programs that are presumably using those materials to design course content - see AfD. Your comments on potential reliablity issues would be appreciated. Egfrank (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Sources existing is one thing. Actually getting them into the article is another. I'm not in a position to do more than identify possible sources via the web, but I understand some of the other editors involved might have access. My library resources are basically HUC in Jerusalem and anything else I can get from Hebrew University via inter library loan. I haven't actually checked, but I don't imagine this is the kind of thing anyone here is going to spend their library budget on. Egfrank (talk) 10:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the academic programs, from your recent comment at the AfD, I gather are programs in Messianic Judaism? As you say there, I think you have the necessary secondary sources. If you're going to make OR out of this, WP wouldn't be the place to publish it. DGG (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they appear to be specifically in Messianic Judaism. Egfrank (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I have no interest in WP:OR - too much work to do it right and besides if I did manage to write something good - I'd want to publish it in a place where I could get credit. :-) Seriously though, my role has primarily been in beating the sourcing drum on the talk page and in trying to keep the scope limited to something that can be documented in secondary sources. Egfrank (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral terms column has been removed. Egfrank (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your feedback and help. Egfrank (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. Re: avoiding summing up on one line, I think this could more easily and apparently, less disturbingly, be accomplished outside of a table, in regular paragraph format under section headings like I suggested in the delete page. Then again, to be able to cite concepts like "Isaiah 53/Suffering Servant: Christians = Jesus, Jews = Israel" or "Trinity: Christians = yes, Jews & Muslims = no" is kind of a no-brainer, and some of them are summed up in just a line or two within the main articles anyway. Just more of my 2 cents, thanks. -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as for format, i was thinking just the same. Structured paragraphs would seem best. As for range of opinions, some of them are indeed clear and unambiguous. "Trinity" is unmistakably clear for Jews & Moslems, but do you consider Unitarians to be Christians? And the Jewish (or Christian) concepts of the afterlife seem much too complicated for summation, especially considering the historical changes. Cf. the current liberal Jewish (& perhaps liberal Christian) avoidance of the topic, with the Pharisees, who made it a test of belief. DGG (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, Christians could be a maybe on Trinity, depending. Which brings up a major question, who gets to decide who is Christian, who is Jewish, etc. here on Wikipedia, Wikipedia editors or the religious groups themselves? A big reason for the AfD was the proposed compromise to remove the Messianic column as giving undue attention and placing theirs as a minority Jewish view. Lisa wouldn't have that either, she wanted them Christian all the way. And a check on the history of Messianic articles and categories reveals a major effort to remove Messianics out of Judaism and put them solely into Christianity. I fully understand the reasons for that view, though I strongly object to it being used as the standard to categorize religious groups, I think they should be categorized according to what they say they are. If not then yeah, what's to stop me from moving Unitarianism out of upper-level Christian categories if I don't think they should be viewed as Christians? So, now might also be a good time to kind of "lay down the law" or come to consensus or whatever regarding this issue too. -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than Unitarianism, which is not exactly a hot-button issue these days, this has been a recurrent problem with the articles on Mormonism. As for MJs (a subject I try to stay away from) the point of the article is exactly to contrast them with other Jews and other Christians, to elucidate their terminology. Since one of the problems has been the question to which the terminology is deliberately evasive, it is very much a hot-button issue. Sometimes a trick of wording can help: conventional Christianity, conventional Judiaism. WP fights over terminology get lame very quickly, and go on forever.

As for the general problem, it isn't about finding sources, its finding someway to select truly representative sources out of the whole range of traditions of the different religions involved. You can document from secondary sources quite a range of possible meanings for the terms. DGG (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is, I think, true more for some terms than others. But even highly disputed terms within a tradition can be handled so long as one limits oneself to observation of a dispute and defers discussion to a more appropriate location. In most cases there is still a documented common core which can be placed in the cell and when there is not, the cell can simply point to the article where the various meanings are explained fully.

I agree that documenting a range of statements is usually the best approach, but even that can have synthesis and WP:NPOV problems. For any one religious concept there are quite literally hundreds and even thousands of reliable sources. Futhermore there are problems of historicity - the valience given to certain interpretations changes over time. For example, in the 1960's and 1970's the Roman Catholic church and Anglican communion were engaged in serious discussions of concelebration of and even came out with a joint statement of Eucharistic theology. However, attempts at full communion broke down after the Anglican church began ordaining women and a quick scan of the internet shows that Roman Catholic sites appear to be more interested in differentiating themselves than finding commonalities (of course, internet is not necessarily a reliable source for the weight to be attached to opinions - polemics seem to attract more bloggers than reconciliation).

Culling the most appropriate is, whether we admit or not, an act of analysis and synthesis and even arguably POV. This is true whether the culling is done by individuals or by group consensus. We could say "only use official documents" but there is a notable historical and sociological critique of the overreliance on institutions as a definer of group identity and history. We could rely on surveys of "popular" opinion - but they are few and far in between and often plagued with methodological problems (cf. recent disputes over the Jewish population survey). Egfrank (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any editing involves subjectivity. NPOV is a goal, and cannot be attained precisely --there is always the problem of what to consider important. the same rule applies here as elsewhere: report the mainstream view, and give proportionate weight to the others. For summary articles like these, the practical solution is to try to find some concise way to indicate there is variation, and say that details are found in the more detailed articles. The current dispute on the AfD talk page about idolatry is a good example. DGG (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an inconsistency between your vote in the vote summary and the vote on the talk page of the AfD. You may wish to reconcile the two votes. Egfrank (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)--fixed this one, changed to keep. DGG (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I haven't heard from anyone and would like to get some consensus from others, but may do some more work on the main article especially. I've come across at least one scholarly source that sounds excellent and would relate to all the founders, and have some ideas for changing the article to make it stronger. --Parkwells (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've added more on Lyle, Margaret Flagg Holmes and Beulah Burke (am going through the founders one by one. Would you take a look and let me know how you think they're coming along? Will also try to encourage more work on AKA itself, but decided to do this first.--Parkwells (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

will comment on the talk pages--those first articles are getting there. BTW, the text in MFH says "nine African American women students who founded the sorority," but the sidebar lists 20. The first paragraph of the article on AKA says 16. The text in section 1.1 says 9 + ELH, and then that they accepted 7 sophomores before the first initiation. That makes 17. The table at the bottom of that page shows that the 20 are the 9 initial members, the 7 sophomores , 4 of the 6 who incorporated it in 1913, and 1 executive director. I wouldn't say that any of them except the first 9 were founders in the usual narrow sense.

more generally, I've checked 20 or so similar pages at random--and no other fraternity or sorority among them claims its founders were notable per se, or gives such emphasis in bios of notable members to their work in the society itself. The most they do is list the founding members in a paragraph. It would be very difficult to claim more here.DGG (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've accidentally said keep twice in these AfD's, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organizations of The Elder Scrolls and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artifacts of The Elder Scrolls. I know how these things can happen I've done it myself a couple of times. RMHED (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC). fixed. My apologies--but it is getting rather repetitive. Looking back at them, it's odd how people pay more attention to some than others--maybe we should be discussing policy instead & get greater consistency.DGG (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Mike, you'll need to find a better source for the plagiarism accusation. Not that i disbelieve it necessarily, but it still needs a real source. DGG (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Bob Park is not sufficient? The accusation itself is quoted in the controversy section of the article. Note that matters of belief don't enter here - despite Stolper's original research, which I distrust. All we can do is to note that the accusation was made, which we have done. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a person's web page is not a source for accusations about another person, direct or indirect, per WP:BLP. A wise policy, IMO, since they are self-published sources, and one can put anything there. If Park actually published it somewhere, in a third party RS, then that could be used. DGG (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In reference to your comment on the deletion page of Sphinx Head Society: if what you say is true, shouldn't all groups listed on List of collegiate secret societies be deleted as well? I don't understand why this page is the butt of tons of criticism when other "secret society" wiki articles have less information and fewer credible citations. This group is an established institution at Cornell University and is very important to the campus' history. I hope that you and all others could please recognize that and allow the article to go un-deleted. Thank you for your consideration. User:GoBigRed1865 (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, a good number of them probably should be deleted also, judging them individually of course--a very few do have enough references for notability. DGG (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I'd point you at this [9] Since it does involve BLPs (policy says tell an admin if BLP), although I'm not sure that it is relevant in this case. Its more of a simple COI issue, not so much a libel/slander issue. Mbisanz (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple COI, but I'll comment on that. The SG bio poses no problems--there seem no controversial claims, & he's probably notable. The SE bio has possible notability, but more diffuse. I will comment further on the various talk pages. DGG (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been helping out with vandalism patrol for quite a while. Now I'm trying to help out with New pages patrol. I have read policy but some things are a judgment call, which takes time to develop. As a relative newcomer to this job I will make mistakes and try to learn from them. So to help me learn could you please answer two questions: 1) Do you agree that A7 includes a "group of people" or an "organization" not just a company, and therefore my nomination of Quintana Roo Speleological Survey was appropriate? 2) Where in WP:CSD does it say that an editor should not restore a CSD request that has been mistakenly removed?

My thinking based on your edit summary was that you removed my CSD simply because it was not a company. I knew it wasn't a company, thought that it qualified as an organization, so thought that your removal was incorrect. Now I think the article is about something the organization created rather than an organization. If your edit summary had pointed out that the subject was not a group of people, company, or organization then I would have understood your objection and not renominated for deletion.

Please realize that regarding New pages patrol I am a relative newcomer and I suggest that WP:BITE should apply. The tone of your note to me implied that I knew I was doing wrong. But I did not know that it was wrong to restore a CSD that I thought had been mistakenly removed. E.g. if the creator had removed it or a vandal had removed it I would have been correct to restore it. I still do not see anything in WP:CSD or in the CSD template to say that an editor should not restore a CSD that he thinks was mistakenly removed. So I did not think that what I was doing was wrong. I've learned better and won't do this in the future.

I suggest that your tone toward me could have been milder. Look I'm just trying to help out - to improve the encyclopedia. Before I added the {{db-bio}}, I made minor edits to that article to improve it in case it was judged worth keeping. I know you're pretty busy as an admin but a minute extra time writing a gentle note to a user who is trying to be helpful might avoid driving away a helpful editor. Frankly, I just don't need the hassle that Wikipedia sometimes produces. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'd like to check some ideas with you, since no one else has commented on the extensive notes I left on the discussion page (except Miranda did not want to delete paragraphs about the hazing deaths). I've rewritten about five bios, adding material about how many people went to college, and hope they might meet the standard. Also I've begun to see a few founders less noteworthy (or there was little record of them.)

I've found some additional academic sources which assess the importance of African American sororities and fraternities in building social capital - pretty fundamental idea, and particularly important in the early part of the century. (Also, they built the African American upper class, but someone else can write about that.) I'm thinking of a paragraph of background based on such sources, to help readers understand these women's accomplishments. What do you think?

All accomplishments are for their own time, although some seem to surpass it. Men tended to write more about themselves and give themselves credit, thus establishing a paper record of how important they were. Plus, there is a real tendency in Wikipedia (the people who write for it) to give space to notorious criminals and victims of crimes - everyone likes the dramatic. Women who taught hundreds of students and built community aren't covered as well.

Also, in the first decades after slavery, 30,000 black teachers had started in the South, but by 1900, in a segregated system, more than double the number of black teachers were needed to reach parity with whites. (Anderson (1988)p.244-245)

I got involved in this issue because I had some understanding of what those women's contributions meant. My assessment is that in many areas, Wikipedia's historic accounts tend to be slanted to political history made by men, repeating old biases. The last three decades of professional academic work has stressed uncovering the history of groups long underrepresented, but now such groups are underrepresented on Wikipedia. The absence of social history was rather striking when I first started looking at state and city histories.--Parkwells (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your evaluation of our weaknesses--perhaps it might be a good idea to try some general articles as well as making these specific articles more general. The part I know is about Black libraries in the south--with all the disadvantages of prejudice and absurdly inadequate funding, they nonetheless made a magnificent contribution to public education. We must remember that in the South in that period teaching and librarianship were the most prestigious occupations that Black women in the American South could possibly enter. The result was several generations of teachers and librarians of unmatched quality--probably of unmatched quality for any time in any country. Most of the women from the early years of this Sorority seem to have had their career in the North--an understandable choice. I notice from the articles that some were probably among the first black women in their professions, and had distinguished careers by the standards of women of the time in any racial group. I would encourage you to look for specific sources, and not rely on their role in developing the sorority. The road to scucess here is to concentrate on a manageable number of very strong articles. Remember that the prejudice and imbalance and ethnocentricity is not that of Wikipedia particularly, but of society in general. Have patience with the people here--you will find help and support here if you can put up with the customary immature brusqueness of WP's culture. Personally, I find it unpleasant that WP works this way, but this is a unique resource, and to contribute it to it one must tolerate the others. DGG (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I do realize it just reflects society, but that's also why I decided to keep working on it - there's a chance to educate people. I am continuing to look for more sources, including about black education then, and found one woman in the New GA Encyclopedia, but others included in assessments of what the sororities accomplished by creating social capital. I agree many of them had outstanding education and careers. Several were in the North, but they were in cities to which African Americans had migrated in hundreds of thousands, so they were often teaching them. In that case, they were still raising "the community", as African Americans in the north had longer school years and maybe more chance to benefit. I'm also finding ways to emphasize what was there - as in a resume, you can use the facts to tell a better story.--Parkwells (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed room for articles on the topic of African American sororities and fraternities as a class, and also about education after the Civil War (at least I haven't found much about late10th-early 20th c. education. I'll add those to discussion pages for people who have a more direct interest.--Parkwells (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On new page patrol today, I came across an article about a short kiddie-porn movie. It was well-written, but the notability of its subject was questionable, and I could not find anything in WP:CSD about movies, even short ones. In my mind, a PROD would have taken too long to take its course, and I was also hesitant to bring the matter to AfD, as I had a feeling that the article's originator might have wanted just that: the AfD discussion would have given him free publicity.

I initiated the AfD anyway. In the end, the article was speedied a little less than two hours after I listed it. It was speedied as an attack page. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/... (short film). My question is, the next time I come across a situation like this, what would be the best course of action for a non-admin? --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a truly special case, being a detailed description of a work of child pornography, albeit one possibly originally produced for innocent motives. As the article itself gives a possibly true name, and an identifiable picture, it must be removed immediately--as you well recognized. The question here is not as much notability as BLP.--no matte how notable the film were to be, we could not have such an article with such a picture. The moralistic justification given in the article that it shows the dangers of people making such films, does not in the least rescue it. We have no exact category, but i consider speedy as an attack p. as a responsible way to proceed--such articles are normally deleted within a few minutes. . But the alternative of bringing it to Afd is also effective--tho in this case it proved not as fast. To get the attention of an admin, look for one currently on line, or post at WP:AN/I--dozens of people monitor it. One thing you might have done immediately, is to blank the article--replace it by a blank page --this at least keeps it hidden in the edit history instead of displayed to whoever happens to chance on it. As it had not yet been done, I have also deleted the picture and appropriately warned the ed. Thanks for spotting it. DGG (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also requested WP:OVERSIGHT on the picture and the article, which has been done; they are now hidden. DGG (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of opening an RFC on Ned Scott over his actions at WP:FICT and I wanted to sound you out on your opinion. Hiding T 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG -- Johnbod made a proposal for Category:Journalism academics that I think would work well for Category:Academics and Category:Scholars: Combine the two into Category:Scholars and academics; the subject tree for each of those two could also be combined into Category:Scholars and academics. If you have thoughts or considerations, please chime in at Category talk:Academics. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in general, such an approach is always more sensible than arguing over narrow distinctions in terminology. I will comment there furtherDGG (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a courtesy notice that I have nominated for deletion an article you have created or edited, 2007 De Anza baseball players rape case. The deletion discussion may be found here. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the above is the template I sent to several people. DGG, I noticed you removed the PROD tag and I just wanted you to know I respect your work around here and what you have to say, so nothing personal I hope. Cheers, Wikidemo (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sure, no problem--I appreciate the notice, and the consensus at AfD will decide. Send anything I deprod there any time, if you disagree--that's what it's for. DGG (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on those spammy articles on business methods. DGG (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: they are the result of simple Google searches, the first batch for "solution provider" / "solutions provider", the second for "management solution". More will be forthcoming once I formulate the search strings that will find what I am looking for. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG! I have a problem. The biography of Pietro De Camilli is a stub. Please see the article and made some corrections. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the stub formatting. you might yourself add a few recent articles from PubMed. look for any in PNAS or Cell or Nature, the top journals. DGG (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DGG. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dad. :-) Staszu13 (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I noticed you removed the copyvio notice from this article. May I ask why? --Nehwyn (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, now that's better. :) --Nehwyn (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I was also removing the copyvio.)DGG (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see ArbCom has , in my opinion correctly, declined the matter; but there's an RfC, at which perhaps I will commment. DGG (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your points on the specific criteria. Sorry, I was responding to the OP with my post, as he's tried this under different wording literally every 3 weeks since the WP:N merger failed. At least this time he didn't claim it was to support "long standing consensus".Horrorshowj (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC). Well understood--sorry for any implication otherwise. I have rarely seen a more confusing, & repetitive discussion than that talk page. DGG (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've undeleted and stubbed both. Thank you for pointing out :) Feel free to directly revert me in the future ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, as far as the Laura Kasischke article, I have two observations relative to cleanup work. After restoring a deleted article, it would be a good thing to restore the associated wikilinks removed following the CSD. I restored one, but there are others. Also, it would be a nice touch to either explain the restoration to editors or eliminate the underlying reason for the db-bio placement with a few words or wikilink. Even short article stubs should briefly assert importance/significance/notability of the subject and, as written, the current stub does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. (Almost everyone I know is an American fiction writer and poet; we're just really lousy at it.)

If you have not the time or inclination to make the these changes, it is a small matter. I've watchlisted the article and can get to it in the next few days, assuming no poetry enthusiast gets there first. But, to me, going through the full restoration process and showing transparency in tagging and deletion actions are two admirable features of a superior administrator. -- Michael Devore (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

she is a prize winning poet with multiple well-reviewed works of fiction. I wouldnt have asked for undelete if I hadn't checked it in google. (my clue to spotting it & checking was b.1961--most self-published poets added to WP are a good deal younger) It takes time to write a good WP article--one of the reasons I dont like deleting incomplete articles soon after creation. I'll get there today. But ofcourse you arer ight that the article as written was an absurdly incomplete place to leave it. People do that, though.DGG (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I twigged to the subject's notability when I saw that there were at least seven articles linking to this one which were subsequently de-linked (per earlier full restoration remarks). Of course, the What links here count alone is hardly a foolproof indicator, but it can raise suspicions of significance for further examination. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to drop a note and say that it's been good seeing another inclusionist voice over at WP:UCFD. There have definitely been times that I've felt overwhelmed. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat different from article inclusionism, more of a tolerance for individuals here. But it shows the power of a small group determined on getting their way in a relatively poorly-attended corner. Regret I can't do more, but my main concerns now are with preventing something similar at WP:Fiction and WP:Trivia. DGG (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you declined the speedy deletion and replaced it with a prod. I really hate mistagging speedies, for the unfortunate results it can have (losing a potentialy good article, and losing a potentialy good editor), so I was wondering, what is your rationale to decline speedy? I couldn't find any assertion of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

claimed notability as a linguist and 19th Croatian missionary to Africa. There might be refs. or books written. I mean to look in fact, & if i can find any maybe remove even the prod tag. Didn't notice it was you who had tagged it, or I would have said more of an explanation. DGG (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm flattered, but what do you mean "it was me"? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC) I mean that if I had spotted it was you who placed the speedy i would have known it was certainly not merely careless and given a full explanation to you on your talk page, as I do when it seems worthwhile or the matter is perhaps debatable.DGG (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats good advice on speedy's. Right now I think I'm averaging about a 50% conversion rate of tagged CSD articles that are eventually deleted, I don't know if that's good or bad. The one thing I like about the Speedy v. the PROD is that with the speedy, in theory a third editor will review it when deleting or declining the CSD tag w/ or w/o a hang on. On the other hand, the creator can (and has a several times) removed the PROD with little more than a Edit Summary (see Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, I'm intending to AfD it later this week). If there was some way to incorporate a hang-on feature to a PROD or a requirement that an involved user can't remove it, then I'd say the tool continuum would be right. But thats a far bigger challenge than I'm willing to take on. I'll just PROD and then AFD when that happens. Incidentally, I see your going to be at the wiki-meetup in NYC. Any reccomended things to bring? I've got a monster of a laptop, so I'm hoping I don't have to lug it down on metro-north. Mbisanz (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, {DGG ... the WP:SPA 121.217.146.251 (talk · contribs) has been making nothing but disruptive edits, in spite of warnings ... would you please WP:BLOCK them? Thanks. —72.75.72.199 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC). Final warning given. will check it tomorrow & will block if it continues. DGG (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Don't blame Keeper for coming across wrong. As the two involved eitors, I asked him to respond, since I know I come across a little harsh to newbies. If anything I think h was erring on the side trying to explain as many other reasons than non-notability. Interesting idea about looking in non-digital resources. I wonder though what the odds are of there being much material specific to this individual's life. Do we have an article on Bill Clinton's primary photographer? and that was in a modern era when the press plays a larger role in reporting on itself. I see the argument of the "first photographer" as interesting, but that was 50 years ago, there have been NO published stories with him as the primary subject. I'm not notable in any manner and even I can dig up at least one regional newspaper story about myself. Mbisanz (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all we need is about his career, not his personal life. As for the sort of material there might be, see [10] and [11] and [12] And there are thousands of books on FDR & Truman. I wish I had time for this one. Looking at non digital resources is basic to adequate work for anything except studies on the internet itself, though I have to remind even myself frequently. :) DGG (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post there DGG, I've added an addendum to my comments from yesterday. Your sentiments are heard loud and clear, I appreciate your input into the matter. I also wish I had the time and resources to save this one (even though I've leaned towards deletionism lately) and as such, have (obviously) opined towards deletion of this one as well. Really, the main problem is sourcing, (and BLP sourcing at that) but there is quite evidently a strong, admitted COI issue, which makes a POV issue, which makes an OWN issue, but you know all that. Reliable, verifiable sources would fix all that and I wish I could find some. As it stands, because of the imminent problems that would arise if it was in fact kept as is, with a "needs sources tag" (and we both know the backlog there), I think it should go redlinked into that good night... Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for your second opinion on what I wrote. Much appreciated. Keeper | 76 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She claims to have sources, since we can't suspend the AfD, can I just withdraw it without prejudice to refile? Mbisanz (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, you can, and it would be much appreciated. Just say so at the AfD. There is always the possibility of refiling-but it is considerate to wait about a month, better two. In the meantime i will also help edit the article to make it look like less of a memorial. the problem with COI is that even the articles about notable people generally say either too much, too little, or the wrong things altogether--the problems are real, and they must be fixed. I agree with you about this. DGG (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied to your company email .

Oh yeah, if you wanted in-WP verification that the e-mail reply was from me…it was from me. Michael Devore (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mark Cousins (writer), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Cousins (writer). Thank you. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have other reasons, but you didn't actualy close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Krueger Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC) -- oops--I forgot. Someone seems to have gotten to it by now. DGG (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need for the bot, but it has twice recently tagged articles that I have saved in early stages and I get irritable. The ADB is almost a national institution, co-ordinated by the ANU, but with input from many universities. I don't think they take grave offence at being sourced as long as they are fully acknowledged, which I do (some others don't and I have to rewrite their articles from time to time for this reason).--Grahame (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -does this fall within the realm of an acceptable image on a user page (and note the caption)? It's Commons, but I suspect it is not what the uploader had in mind, and I don't know what the rules are. I see you're on now, which is why I'm bothering you with it. Sorry Tvoz |talk 07:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it does not, and I have alerted him to it. It isnt the first time he's done something similar. I'll follow it up. You picked the right person to ask, as it happens, because i am very sympathetic to the use of sexual content--where it belongs-- and I wont overreact. DGG (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, D. Tvoz |talk 08:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way - I have no problem with sexual content either, but this, with that caption, is just offensive. And it reminds me of junior high school, although I hate to think about how many decades ago that was. cheers Tvoz |talk 08:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you went to junior high but in mine we weren't shown too many vaginas.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:17, 12/15/2007

—Preceding comment was added at 08:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yeah - I was thinking of the 13 year old boys giggling over their older brothers' Penthouse and Hustler magazines in the schoolyard. Tvoz |talk 08:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and, if it comes to sex education, this is a very suitable, clear, and instructive image--certainly as compared to what we saw in my schoolyard. This is the sort of image to use when we want to use one, but user pages in WP are not the place for it. Especially when their use has a little bit of WP:POINT involved. DGG (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've said your a librarian, and from your user page I gather you work for a university or public library, could you take a look at this diff and make sure I'm presenting this academic-related issue in a relevant and even manner [13] ? I tried very hard on this one to source every assertion and be evenhanded to both sides. Mbisanz (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of understand what you mean (If you're talking about the vagina picture) however, How can someone be offended by such a picture? It is a Commons picture which is legal to use on Wikipedia, I've seen some really disturbing user pages. And it isn't like a pornograpic picture, it's a explanitorial picture. So I ask you to reconsider my plea, as I love that picture. Mister ricochet (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied on your user page with a suggestion. DGG (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has a habit of threatening people with being blocked. He tries to have people think he is an admin. Please do something in this matter. Mister ricochet (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the problem is that Mister ricochet has been making personal attacks at Talk:John Lennon. He should be warned about his behavior, the least of which is not the photos he chooses to put on his User page. --David Shankbone 18:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to be able to persuade him to be more moderate. The Lennon may be the easier place to deal with it. DGG (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for (again) saving a ballet stub I created; concerning the NY Times review, I was about to look it up (pre-1981 reviews are a special case) when the article was marked for deletion. I added the University of Utah Libaray info. as I had that in the Notepad already and waited till the matter was resolved before continuing. The following is redacted from postings on my talk page, from Talk:Octet (Christensen ballet) and User talk:Manderson198:

May I ask then that you remove your request [Octet] be deleted ... Robert Greer

I removed the proposal for deletion. Cheers. Manderson198

=== DGG has alread rescued ''Octet'' ===

I believe I saved the article from deletion by removing my prod, DGG just suggested to you that to have a stronger notability case, reviews of the production shoiuld be added. Anyways, case closed and happy editing.--Manderson198

... DGG wrote, "tag no longer needed -- just add some reviews" (emphasis added). I was looking up the University of Utah information at the time that you tagged the article ... but decided not to do any further work on it till the deletion issue was resolved. This morning ... I added the NY TImes review ...

You have thus embarassed me before the esteemed DGG (I am not writing sarcasticaslly.) (Emphasis addeed.) Robert Greer

Robert Greer (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let nobody feel embarrassed here about anything. Just look up on the page to see the mistakes I make, and if you want to see more, look in my archive; if you want to see yet others, try user contributions. But there are a lot of those postings to go through--and this is the point--one can not work in a non-trivial fashion without making mistakes from time to time, and the only thing ever asked for is to apologize and learn from them. DGG (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you when it comes to the "popular culture" section in the Stockhausen article. I hope that you will post on the talk page and express you disagreement with the wholesale deletion of that section. It certainly needs trimming, but some of it can be salvaged and integrated into the article. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please issue the same warning to Arcayne? Thanks. All is understood. Mister ricochet (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We were hoping to get your input on the sexual harassment section for Joseph Schlessinger. hillhealth and I agree on which sources are appropriate to use and are *pretty close* to reaching consensus on what the wording should be. We have decided to default to the administrator's decision making abilities for the final wording. Both versions may be found at the very bottom of the discussion of the joseph schlessinger page. Whatever you decide, please lock your version into place to prevent vandalism. We're asking Coren for his input too. Thanks! Truther truther (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC) -- I've commented, now awaiting Coren--I sincerely thank you both for your cooperative spirit.DGG (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

joseph Schlessinger discussion

DGG: I don't know about Coren's comments, but I am somewhat in agreements with your comments. This did receive national coverage. "salaicious conversations with her about sex, and spoke about and showed her pornography" is really the bare minimum one can say to describe the incident.

The key part of this will be to 1. make the changes you feel are appropriate and 2.lock it into place to prevent vandalism. Unfortunately, there have been incidents of name changing from hillhealth/letsnotlie and I just want to make sure it isn't deleted as per multiple times before.

I do appreciate your time and attention to this section

PS: I noticed that you deleted part of the trial section. what was wrong with quoting a federal judge the way I did? thanksTruther truther (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

because that section quoted him multiple times, all saying much of the same thing. Once is enough. More is excessive weight on negative material, especially when only the negative phrases are excerpted. I kept the one which was a connected sentence. No one will be in doubt about it. I point out the intellectual property lawsuit was not about one of his major projects. Don't let dislike for the man affect the way the article was written--it has more effect on others reading it if it is strictly objective.

We do not have the ability to lock down articles. I can semi-protect against vandalism from ip addresses, but that is not the problem. I can protect against changes altogether, in order to stop vandalism, or a divisive editing dispute, but only for a short period. Articles are not permanently protected. And I can not do it pre-emptively. It will stay on my watchlist, & if people mess it up I will notice & intervene. DGG (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===Joseph Schlessinger conclusion (hopefully soon!)==- Thanks for your reply. Well, there is *plenty* of positive on his page, but I understand where you are coming from.

Its been a while since we have heard from coren. Might be away for the holidays;maybe give another day or two for a reply? Is there another admins' opinion you or I may ask instead? (actually, coren and yourself are the only ones I have ever exchanged dialog with...!) Cheers,Truther truther (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remind Coren. He seems to be around. DGG (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren's comments are in, but are in (slight) disagreement to yours and mine. Do we need a thrid admin. to be a "tie breaker?" Hopefully we're in the home stretch here. Thanks, once again!. Truther truther (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted Coren's preferred version. The respect to BLP considerations was better than mine. I copied it into the article and will ask for protection if necessary. DGG (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'd like to explain my motivation here, which I think has been misunderstood due to my admittedly high level of persistence -- there's been a lot of rhetoric directed at me that I think is wholly off base ([14] [15] [16] [17]). My interest in this was sparked when I found little coverage of these topics outside the movement itself, which led to the "independent sources" question.

My persistence is partly caused by my frustration with the discussion: most of the comments advocating "keep" seem to me to misunderstand the issue (yours excluded, as I'll get to). The central question, as I see it, is whether the fact that a religion is notable automatically means that its deities are notable. One aspect of this question is whether publishing houses associated with the religion are sufficiently "independent" for WP:N purposes to establish notability. I see that as an open question of Wikipedia policy, and few people in these talks have addressed it. You did respond to it, and I appreciate your having taken my position seriously enough to reply. I disagree with your response, because I have a harsher understanding of the policy behind WP:N: I think that if a subject is notable, it would have been written about in sources completely independent of the subject (as most of the Catholic saints have been). But I feel that the ability to discuss interpretations of WP:N at that particular AfD has been shut down by off-topic speeches and accusatory rhetoric.

So please, don't interpret my persistence as a view about the validity of minority religions. I think they are interesting and should be explained on Wikipedia. My concern is about policy interpretation. Fireplace (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since you seem to like my attention to Ken Wilber, I see this question as analogous to the question of whether the notability of Ken Wilber establishes the notability of Ken Wilber's jargon, like AQAL, which was turned into a redirect for similar reasons. Fireplace (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have written if I did not take your work seriously--and I am aware of some of the absurdity in the defenses of those articles. I understand you want the topics to be covered appropriately. Where we disagree is what that entails; I think a religion being notable does mean its deities (and quasi-deities) are notable, in reasonable proportion to their significance. I'm not sure how far to carry it. Every canonized RC saint is I think notable, as well as those traditionally honored. Every Sufi saint would therefore be notable, and every Hindu or Buddhist incarnation if there is literature discussing them enough to write an article and people here to do it. For smaller religions, there might be some limit needed if there were a great many figures involved, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. In general, whomever the believers think most important are important.

I certainly do accept in-religion sources for articles on the religion--if there are outside views, so much the better. As you want to discuss it further, fine--I consider the RS noticeboard a good way of handling these questions. To my knowledge, only a few Catholic saints and other holy figures have much non-Catholic commentary, because nobody else bothers--except anti-Catholics with their own POV. It will be interesting to actually look on this one. However, I am surprised people can't find our Theosophist deities discussed in books about or attacking Theosophism, or at least other tertiary sources. But I personally haven't looked. There is consistency in my attitude here, for I also am rather broad-minded about sources for articles on fiction--and i think the consensus attitude is loosening generally about primary sources.

Anyway, especially on topics such as these, I think it very wise to compromise if possible, and I think there are a small enough number of articles to accept. I think you might want to consider that. There are worse problems here.

As for Wilbur, I see less need to compromise--this is more objective. the degree to which someone's academic or pseudo-academic jargon is worth considering depends on the academic consensus. You may want to see my comments on the various Generations pages, or ex-pages. DGG (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for your on-the-mark comment at the fringe theories noticeboard. I don't know if you intended to only date and not sign your comment, but as it showed up, your signature did not appear.

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Hilarion, in case you haven't seen it yet, there is a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great White Brotherhood, also resulting from the same noticeboard discussion "Gardens of woo".

There is an additional section also, at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Golden Dawn where it appears some more religion articles may soon be targeted.

I'm not a follower of any of those beliefs and am not an editor of those articles (though I might do a few edits incidential to these AfDs). But I feel concerned about the use of the fringe theories noticeboard to patrol religion and philosophy articles. WP:FRINGE seems intended for science, history, politics, etc,... not religion, unless religion gets into a science article or something like that. I have also been surprised and disappointed to see derogatory words like "woo" used on that noticeboard to describe the religious beliefs of others and the work of well-intentioned editors. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when I accidentally leave off my sig, its because I get enthusiastic and type 5 ~ marks instead of 4. If you see it, feel free to just add the DGG. I agree with you on the language used; it's an a priori sign of prejudice. FRINGE doesn't apply to religion, but to a certain extent proportionate weight does--the number and extent of articles does depend on the importance in terms of available literature and world-wide cultural knowledge. How to deal objectively with appropriateness content is a weak point in WP. I'm keeping in touch with the discussion there. DGG (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, just a word to say hi, and let you know that I'm not being cavalier with these prod tags, in my estimation. We simply have differing opinions about the notability of some of these figures and this process is working as it should. Let me know if you feel differently. Cheers! --Lockley (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed feel differently and i have indeed told you why on your talk page. I don't challenge this way when I just disagree on the notability. I point out there that you have also been not notifying the authors of articles, and giving unhelpfully nonspecific deletion rationales. DGG (talk) 09:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, What do you think of this block. There is a considerable irony in being blocked for incivility to betacommand! All the best for the holidays. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - great to see the system working! Hoping to see the Master of the Playing Cards development in 2008! I don't forget. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised I forgot to thank you for your level head and balance during this. I took on board what you said, and I appreciated that you took the time. Ceoil (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, In voyaging outside of the academic domains I've had a bit of frustration dealing with the numerous overlapping categories relating to various methods of publication. I was thinking of a potential category tree to try to rein in some of the chaos, and thought I would float it by you (another librarian with a particular interest in publications) to see what you thought. My thinking is (will be in a few minutes) at Category talk:Publications. If there are discussions or projects you're aware of that are looking at this topic, please let me know -- I've looked but haven't found any. --Lquilter (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

joseph Schlessinger

Oh come on! How is naming the references of the awards an issue? He's the one who writes his own website (more or less a university blog) and he's the one who says he received the awards, and its not mentioned anywhere else for the most part. There is no issue with saying "according to his CV and website?"

Because first, some of them have third party sites, just as you say, & such refs for the others can no doubt be found--if you want to make a positive contribution, do so. And second, it's explicit in the references below and does not need to be repeated. Even were a reference not given, then it is still unnecessary, because such is the assumption with all bios in WP--this is one of the exceptions to the use of such sources. Please do not be naive about it: For example, to say "X received a degree in 1980" normally means it's according to his own website; to say, "according to his website, X received a degree in 1980" implies that it is not supported otherwise and is in some doubt. That's why your preferred wording is derogatory. DGG (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG:

Here's a clear version of the joseph schlessinger lawsuit. Let me know if this makes more sense than what is currently posted. The original version doesn't really seem to explain anything that I can understand. I THNIK I obeyed all of WP's rules ...THANKS! If there is any rebuttal, I ask that they specify the page number of the PDF of the Judge's ruling as it is 140 pages long. Obviously I have done this too. Truther truther (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeda Research and Development was set up to commercializes inventions made by scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel^[14], have recently challenged the Aventis-owned patent, licensed by Imclone, for the use of anti-Epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) antibodies in combination with chemotherapy, to slow the growth of certain tumors.

Joseph Schlessinger gave testimony that stated the idea of combining the anti-EGFR 108 Antibody with chemotherapy was his idea. However, scientists at the Weizmann Institute provided extensive scientific documentation and testimony that others had in fact researched the same idea both before and during Joseph Schlessinger's time at Weizmann, and challenged Joseph Schlessinger's Aventis/Imclone patent in US federal court.^[16][17].

The production of the 108 Antibody relied on the use of the CH-71 cell line which were the intellectual property of the Weizmann institute.^[18] Joseph Schlessinger took CH-71 Cells without permission from Weizmann institute when he was on sabbitacal from Weizmann. ^{[19] [20]} This 108 Antibody was eventually used to make the combination antibody/chemotherapy drug.

According to a Money Magazine article, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, the presiding federal judge in this case^[21] dismissed Joseph Schlessinger's testimony that the CH-71 Cells were part of the public domain. Judge Buchwald was quoted as saying that "The Weizmann scientists have presented documentary evidence substantiating each step of the inventive process, in stark contrast to the dearth of evidence supporting the named inventors' version of events." She went on to describe the Weizmann Institute's corroborating evidence for patent rights as "overwhelming," and of "extraordinary breadth." Judge Buchwald also stated that "...Schlessinger's explanation... (for Imclone's patent rights) can most generously be described as strained."^[22],^[23].

The verdict went in favor of the scientists at the Weizmann Institute, and in 2006 Imclone Systems filed an appeal to this ruling.^[24]

This illustrates one of the problems with using primary sources: that there is a great deal said in a court case and it is difficult to pick out just what is appropriate. We therefore normally rely upon reliable sources reporting the case. This is especially true for courts of first instance and most especially of actual trial testimony. For example, the quote about his strained interpretation is based upon what does seem a strained interpretation, but of a single one among the many issues, not the rights as a whole. Also, what names actually remain on the patent--all of them? Having re-read the Fortune/CNN article, i think the section should be revised to rely on it alone, together with any other reliable secondary sources. What do you know of reporting the issue? also: Was an appeal eventually filed? Was a license on the patent eventually reached? In any case, the matter should be discussed in generalities, in a single paragraph. There were apparently a number of issues involved, and it will be difficult to explain them in an article of this sort. If you'll tell me about any other sources, about the verdict, (the USA Today one is before the verdict) i may try to write one. It will not include most of the details. If you think an article on the case is justified, try to write one--but then it would not emphasise this particular individual, whose testimony is only part of the maters at issue.

 DGG (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about using primary sources; the reference/picture I used was actually was just the judge's summary and verdict of the case -- ie, I didn't read all of the testimony. Is that summary considered "a reliable sources reporting the case" or did you mean only news stories?

I actually got all the sources from hillhealth; I don't know of any others. How about just deleting what is not applicable within what I have written? You may double-check me, but I'm sure my references are quoted properly.Truther truther (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC) PS: an appeal was filed, see last sentence, and the verdict was in favor of the Weizmann scientists, according the the judge's summary.[reply]

the trial judge's summary is a primary source,whether or not one agrees with what was said in it. I have of course the same view of sources no matter who introduces them. As I read it, the SEC document shows the appeal was filed, but nothing further. But this illustrates further the difficulties in interpreting primary sources. As this is the latest SEC document available, I doubt that the matter has been resolved, but i will look for further secondary sources myself in the biotech literature; there ought to be some. I will then find a suitable wording, but probably not till after the holiday. DGG (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, what names actually remain on the patent--all of them?" --okay to answer this question, Joseph Schlessinger listed himself as the first author on the patent, but he is listed as one of six authors (Michael Sela being the first author) on the original paper. This is according the the USA today article.

Interesting--my reading of the appeals showed it is not yet completely settled or so it seemed to me. Another reason for avoided excessive details. DGG (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, this was the case that was famous for sending martha stewart to jail for insider trading information given to her by Sam Waskal. I actually had a sentence about this in the original draft, but it was deleted by others as "not relevant."Truther truther (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a statement of it in a single sentence, and where to put it. i think its interesting enough to be included, though not to make a link in the other direct . MS isnt notable because the case involved Schlessinger.

Per request: On June 24, 2005 the Court granted summary judgment to Yeda dismissing ImClone's defenses. On September 18, 2006, the Court ruled in favor of Yeda by awarding it sole inventorship rights to the patent. ImClone filed an appeal to this decision on October 5, 2006 (http://sec.edgar-online.com/2007/05/08/0001104659-07-036976/Section13.asp)

I'll pass on the MS info for now. Thanks. Truther truther (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - since you seem to be working on Joseph Schlessinger with this editor, would it be possible for you to explain to him that he can't keep the BLP-violating material that was removed from the article in his userspace, even temporarily? Thanks. BLACKKITE 23:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's been addressed. DGG (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the debate on AN about the whole blocking of an experienced user over a bot threat. I noticed you and Sandy have both suggested either re-assigning BCB from BC or creating a more process-oriented way of dealing with bot reports. I'm not knowledgeable enough to get involved, but several months ago I did have a similar convo with BC and the response was that he was not releasing his code that runs BCB, so as long as the knowledge of the methodology of his Bot remains opaque, I don't see how it could be re-assigned or how other users could go about counseling people. Mbisanz (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there nobody at WP capable of writing a replacement? Then we can retire this one. DGG (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persoanlly, I have no idea how to write a bot, but we have enough experienced users that we could probably put in a request to Wikipedia:Bot requests. I like the idea of moving the NFCC process server side or making it a transparent bot, but that would need to be made at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard and I'm fairly certain an admin or a member of the BAG would be the only person who could command respect in that kind of process. Mbisanz (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with respect to bots, someone more knowledegable than myself. But don't start thinking being an admin gets you any particular respect around here. :) All it seem to do for me is generate long user talk pages. :):) But let's see who notices. Meanwhile, I'm thinking about to whom I should make the suggestion. DGG (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Don't blame Keeper for coming across wrong. As the two involved eitors, I asked him to respond, since I know I come across a little harsh to newbies. If anything I think h was erring on the side trying to explain as many other reasons than non-notability. Interesting idea about looking in non-digital resources. I wonder though what the odds are of there being much material specific to this individual's life. Do we have an article on Bill Clinton's primary photographer? and that was in a modern era when the press plays a larger role in reporting on itself. I see the argument of the "first photographer" as interesting, but that was 50 years ago, there have been NO published stories with him as the primary subject. I'm not notable in any manner and even I can dig up at least one regional newspaper story about myself. Mbisanz (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all we need is about his career, not his personal life. As for the sort of material there might be, see [18] and [19] and [20] And there are thousands of books on FDR & Truman. I wish I had time for this one. Looking at non digital resources is basic to adequate work for anything except studies on the internet itself, though I have to remind even myself frequently. :) DGG (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post there DGG, I've added an addendum to my comments from yesterday. Your sentiments are heard loud and clear, I appreciate your input into the matter. I also wish I had the time and resources to save this one (even though I've leaned towards deletionism lately) and as such, have (obviously) opined towards deletion of this one as well. Really, the main problem is sourcing, (and BLP sourcing at that) but there is quite evidently a strong, admitted COI issue, which makes a POV issue, which makes an OWN issue, but you know all that. Reliable, verifiable sources would fix all that and I wish I could find some. As it stands, because of the imminent problems that would arise if it was in fact kept as is, with a "needs sources tag" (and we both know the backlog there), I think it should go redlinked into that good night... Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for your second opinion on what I wrote. Much appreciated. Keeper | 76 17:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She claims to have sources, since we can't suspend the AfD, can I just withdraw it without prejudice to refile? Mbisanz (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, you can, and it would be much appreciated. Just say so at the AfD. There is always the possibility of refiling-but it is considerate to wait about a month, better two. In the meantime i will also help edit the article to make it look like less of a memorial. the problem with COI is that even the articles about notable people generally say either too much, too little, or the wrong things altogether--the problems are real, and they must be fixed. I agree with you about this. DGG (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on Betacommand's userpage. He is not an administrator anymore since May, so he can't restore the page. I looked at the deleted page, it was tagged as A7 (biography not asserting notability). You may want to go to deletion review, do you have any reliable sources about this person? —Random832 16:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've this problem and I could use the opinion of an administrator. I thought of you since you've helped me before.

The problem is the following: At the Seasick Steve page, someone anonymous (claiming to be the manager of the musician in question, and I'm pretty sure it's the truth) keeps leaving a message asking to stop adding names of artists Seasick Steve played with in the past, because Seasick Steve himself doesn't like namedropping. I've explained it extensively on talk:Seasick Steve in the hope I could reach the anonymous person, you can check that out for more detail. The thing is, the person has a different ip each time, but I'm sure it's the same guy because the message he leaves is the same. Contacting him didn't work because when I leave a message at the ip talk page, the person in question has probably got another ip already. He doesn't seem that fully grasp how Wikipedia works either.

My question for you: do you know a strategy or something, to contact the editor or handle the situation? I could report it as vandalism, but I'm not completely sure it qualifies (even after reading the vandalism criteria). Key to the city (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commented on the article talk page: refer him to OTRS; on the article, just revert, nothing else to do anyway with an ip. DGG (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Key to the city (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Let's discuss that on the article's talk page. Armando.O^{talk · Ev · 3K}...Another thing, clean this talk page xD...you may get 6 archives at least.... 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC) --done bothDGG (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I was reading your userpage (yes, I do that often. Er, not just yours, other editors as well). I noticed a handful of grammatical and spelling errors (nothing major) that I'd like to fix if you wouldn't mind. If they were intentional, I'll leave them alone. Just thought I'd ask first. :-)Keeper | 76 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, I say right there I have never been able to spell-- no spelling checker made seems to fully cope with it--and that anyone should just go ahead and fix it--I will be grateful. (some errors may have been made by others, but please fix them just the same.) For grammar, I'd rather not unless it's missing a quotation mark or such--I am sometime deliberately eccentric. DGG (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, DGG. Didn't see that paragraph about "go ahead and fix it" until I was in the edit page. :-). Didn't change the meaning of anything, or any grammar for that matter. Happy editing, Keeper | 76 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On an article like this All Saints RC Secondary would there be any issues from the teachers of the house being lifted? And would the subjects or houses listings be appropriate for an article. These are some gray areas that I'm trying to figure out in deciding to nominate for deletion or just edit out. Watching here Mbisanz (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is little real consensus about including heads of houses. There are other articles with it--but this is apparently a day school? Are the houses as significant to school life as in the typical English boarding public school? I can't see it involves BLP in the least--wouldn't they be on the school website, & you give no personal information about them. As for subjects taught, i think that should go, (and you say it twice) unless the point is that is is strikingly different from other schools--there have been a few such instances, but that doesnt seem the case here except possibly for Cisco--and I do not know how widespread it is nowadays. There might be precedent for listing the "advanced higher" if they correspond to the US Advanced Placement subjects, which are sometimes listed--since there does not seem to be an article for this level, you might try to write one if you can find good sources--a librarian should be able to help about finding this is the professional literature for educators.) I have some doubts about the list of classroom and facilities--try to reduce it to a paragraph about what is really distinctive. Every school has art and music classrooms. Is an "oratory" a chapel? it might be worth a description. What's the difference between a games hall and a gymnasium? And you need to describe the basics: where in glasgow is it? How many students? How many teachers? Who have been the previous headmasters? Are there any notable alumni--do they call them old boys in Scotland? remember that what people outside of the UK know about UK schools is mostly with relation to Hogwarts. DGG (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, I didn't write that article (I've lived in NY my entire life), I was just wondering how I could hone my skills on editing it. But your advice still applies. Mbisanz (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops. i should have recognized your sig. Sorry. DGG (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every once and a while (usually only a couple times per month), I find a quote from a talkpage, AfD, userpage, or otherwise, that absolutely cracks me up. When I do, I save them on my subpage for their humor, and for posterity. Congratulations, DGG. You've made me laugh out loud! I hope you consider this a great honor, and by clicking here, you can see your quote forever preserved for generations of Wikipedians to follow. Cheers, and happy editing, Keeper | 76 17:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC) I am always pleased when I am trying to be clever, and someone recognizes it. DGG (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. If you have time, I would love to get a clarification on this comment you made at the Fringe theories noticeboard regarding What the Bleep: "it is perfectly reasonable for most of the article to adopt an occultist perspective." I'm unsure of what you mean by this, probably just because I have a hard time distinguishing "occultist perspective" from "occultist point of view." Could you let me know what you mean? Regards, Antelan ^talk 02:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG. Someone has put Speedy deletion tag on the biography of Jonathan Gruber. Gruber is a professor at MIT and one of the raising economist in the World. He has published over 100 research articles and also received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under. He completed his Ph.D. in 1992. So it will take time for him to be more notable. Can you please see the article? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy tag was correctly removed by Moonriddengirl. Almost all admins recognize that an article such as it was at the time [21] is not conceivably a speedy. I will add the citation count from Web of Science, and the rest of the key information from his official bio. It turns out he is a member of the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the US National Academies and therefore he is unquestionably notable. Incidentally, if someone is a full professor it helps to say so explicitly. I've reminded the tagger about what assertion of notability means. DGG (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DGG. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So she got us a reference for Gerald P. Pulley‎. I've incorporated it into the article, but I'd like a less involved set of eyes to ell me if its enough to keep it from deletion in 60 days? Mbisanz (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start. Needs some formatting. This is the sort of ref. i hoped there would be. DGG (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the page a bit. added some references and external links too. when shall it be worthy of removing the deletion tag ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriks8 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some further improvements, commented at the article, & removed the prod. Still could use a little more work, though. DGG (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. It wasn't your fault. —Kurykh 00:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relying primarily on scanty delete opinions posted by User:DGG, User:Coredesat acting as a proxy for User:DGG has, I have concluded, improperly deleted Daniel Malakov, stating that he or she was (in doing so) disregarding multiple Keep arguments by the same editor. I am that editor. No attempt was made to conceal the authorship of my arguments to keep, as every one of my arguments in response to other comments posted on the discussion, i.e., subsequent to my first remarks there, was enclosed in parentheses as (Keep) and properly signed.< It seems to me that prima facie, User:DGG acting through the hatchet wielded by User:Coredesat is violating Wikipedia policy: Deletion should not occur on the basis of a popularity contest.
Further, I was not the only one who argued for Keep.
The merits of the argument were never considered. The quantity of Wikipedia pages deleted by User:DGG and User:Coredesat in a short time (see deletion logs under entries for both Administrators) makes clear that neither could not possibly have evaluated deletes on merits. If this is what Wikipedia administrators mean by consensus, they are simply wrong and Wikipedia is nothing more than an amateurish tabloid (the one word Adminstrators eschew above all others) version of Encyclopedia Brittanica. Further, the basis for deletion was notability, a criterion on which there is no objective guideline. I point out, and it must be said, that many Administrators self-identify as fresh out of school with limited life experience, other than experience on Wikipedia. This does not bode well for the future of Wikipedia as a genuine resource rather than merely an internet phenomenon.
Adminstrators such as User:DGG may enjoy their skill at the Wikipedia consensus process, but aren't they really little more than bullies without portfolio? Trygvielie (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered that you think I'm young enough to be fresh out of school. Nobody has said that for decades. If my colleague acted as my proxy, that would be about the first time; when he closes AfDs in which I participate, it tends to be opposite to my opinion. I delete about 5 to 10 very obvious speedies a day as I happen to come across them them--especially if they look like attack pages; my log shows the timing. But it's great to be called a deletionist--it will help maintain some balance, considering what most people think--especially on articles about crimes, which I often support, even as a small minority. As i said at the AfD, if there's additional sources over time, and you can write a balanced article, try it -- on your talk page. But perhaps someone else might do better at keeping it in proportion. DGG (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked now due to his username, but if he comes back under a new name, I'll instruct him to go to DRV. Thanks. --Coredesat 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate. Where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I do have to admit some concerns with some of your own comments, which puzzled me. For example, you commented about how I was "pushing articles over opposition", and I'm honestly mystified as to what you were talking about? I didn't want to raise the question in the RfA (it was already chaotic enough!), but if, you have a moment, would you be willing to give me more details about your concerns (such as a diff?) My genuine feeling is that you may have accidentally confused me with someone else, and I'd like to see what we can do to try and clear the air.  :) Anyway, as regards my own adminship, I am going to take it slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. --Elonka 02:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I award "The Original Barnstar" to DGG for his fine contributions to Wikipedia. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider. This is a very, very simple WP:V matter, nothing more. I cannot off-hand think of a single other case of a WP:POVFORK being kept on the basis that a handful more WP:IKNOWIT !votes were cast than were reliably sourced !votes in opposition, on a matter that is effectively moot anyway, given that the articles were already merged over a week ago, the AfD just being a formality to establish WP:CSD#G4 grounds for deletion in the case of yet another POV-fork by an editor already on the verge of a block. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion: wait two months, and do another AfD. DGG (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i just removed the deletion template. SantaClaus29 (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what it is. SantaClaus29 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Will Delete It. I'd Change My Mind. SantaClaus29 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What article should I read? Bearian (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Changed to weak keep. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What's up with User:Trygvielie? Bearian (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, you are of course quite correct in what you say. It's only a little light hearted sparring but I'll try to stick to people in my weight class when I can. Nick mallory (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I just hope I didn't lose all my meaning behind the pedantry! --AndrewHowse (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ran accross this user's page and posted this [22] his response was this [23] . From my view this seems clearly like a case of a blog WP:NOT#BLOG or at least WP:NOT#NEWS . (probably should've mentioned that in my comment to him). He's a good user otherwise, so I'd prefer to avoid taking it to an MfD (WP:DICK), unless there are no other options. Any suggestions? Mbisanz (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my eyes it's borderline, and can just conceivably be regarded as list of articles of interest and a help in collaboration. But if you think it hurts the encyclopedia, MfD is the way to find out what the general view is. If you word it that you want to see what others think, I don't think that would be regarded as aggressive. The question is what would hurt the encyclopedia more, letting it stay, or making him remove it? DGG (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, right now its not hurting anything. I'll just watchlist it and hope it stays that way. Mbisanz (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Roberto Carrión Pollit you have added an Expand Template. However it is not required for the stub template is already there! Just a friendly notice! --Ohmpandya (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered about that practice. I know they are in principle redundant, but the expand seems to attract more immediate attention & gives something in the way of directions. DGG (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Thanks for explaining your reasoning for removing the {{prod}}. I have to disagree with you, I'm afraid. As it happens my professional expertise is in the field Wedekind works in (though I have never met him or had any reason to interact with him personally) and he really isn't any more motable than the average prof in the field, indeed, he isn't actually a full professor (he is an associate professor). If there is to be an article about him as a notable academic, it should make a claim for notability based on his expertise. It should not focus entirely on one study that is not particularly important or influential.

The article was created by Sadi Carnot (talk · contribs) who has since been banned for abusing Wikipedia by pushing fringe and pseudoscientific ideas. This article was clearly part of that campaign to legitimise the concept of human pheromones. To be clear, I'm not claiming that the majority of Wedekind's work is not scientifically valid, simply that the focus of this article is on a minor study that is not particularly notable or important. The clue here is in the relative obscurity of the journals the work is published in, when most scientifically robust pheromone work is published in journals such as Nature or Science. My colleagues and I have published work on the subject in those journals, yet would not consider myself notable by a long stretch. When you compare myself or Wedekind to truly notable people in this field, like Catherine Dulac, Richard Axel or Linda Buck, you can see why.

Unless you are interested rewriting it as an actual bio of Wedekind (which would still not pass WP:PROF in my opinion, but would at least be an improvement over this) then I'm going to nominated this for deletion at WP:AfD. Rockpocket 02:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm going to expand it, as i think I said in my note: I'm aware it's not his current principal field, and that his other work is the work published in Nature, J Ec Bio, and Genetics. (Though even some of the MHC work was in PNAS, & PRS-B) I'm also aware he's just an associate professor, and that as such notability is far from automatic. I think I can recognize a cute one-off easily popularized experiment of little intrinsic scientific interest--but public notabiity counts as much here as scientific. I recogize your professional specialization--but I know a little genetics myself, or so Curt Stern thought when he signed my PhD at Berkeley, and I must have picked up some evolutionary biology as a post-doc there with Alan Wilson. True, I haven't done much with it except be the bio librarian to the Princeton Ecology & Evoutionary Bio & the Mol Bio. Depts.

and I've been at WP enough to have known about Sadi's erratic career. Some of his work here was reasonably good though, or he wouldn't have lasted as long as he did. In this case, as typical of a POV puser, he only wrote up the part that appealed to him.

I'll fix it over Christmas, and I do appreciate your willingness to hold off till then so I don't have to do it immediately. And I see you're about to have a vacation also. DGG (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think can tolerate a well written bio of an academic - even if I consider him to be on the fringes of notability - among the reams of reality TV "stars". I'm happy to hold off for a while to see what you can do with it. Best wishes for your Christmas vacation. Rockpocket 02:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting you help to evaluate and intervene to resolve or give advise, in order to avoid an edit war in the main article about Costa Rica. Somebody included info with a complete biased regarding sex tourism, so that this section of the article was completely unbalanced, with irrelevant details regarding sexual tourism, that belong somewhere else (probably in the article sex tourism, but NOT in a country article. Also I have my doubts about the validity of some of the sources by Wiki policies. I raised this issue in the Talk page with only one user participating, and he agreed that, sex-tourism needed to be de-emphasized. By the way, almost a mirror text was included in the article Economy of Costa Rica, where in my opinion was even more improper to include there.

Since nobody else participated, I made a contribution to the tourism section, and left a quick mention to the problem of sex tourism, with all the references intact(despite my doubts, but I deleted the sex-tourism completely from the other Costa Rican article). Then, user:Kww undid my edit and restore part of the sex tourism. I left him a message in his user talk page, and raised the issue again in the Costa Rica´s article. I seriously don´t know if he is trying to criticize sex tourism in Costa Rica or trying to make propoganda for single men to go there. Either way, wiki is not a blog to express personal opinions or do personnal research. I will appreciate if you can judge the situation. Mariordo (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on the article talk page. DGG (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rewriting E. W. Bullinger. If I had known that rewriting copyright violations were possible, I would have done it. (I was also wondering if the article it was copying was actually a copy of wikipedia....) TableManners ^U·T·C 06:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One can always rewrite. BUT a/one has to be careful to rewrite, not paraphrase. b/ it has to be worth the trouble., and c/ it has to leave enough of an article to be supportable. In this instance a/ it seemed to me that the copyvio from the source listed was only the basic biography, which could easily be restated. If the rest of it were also a copyvio I would certainly have hesitated. If it turn out to be, from another source, then there will be further problems, & I will have been at fault for not looking carefully enough. b/He seems to be a major religious leader, and no just the leader of a local congregation who had written a book or two. . If he were only marginally notable, it wouldn't have been worth the effort. c/there was a good deal to say that was still possible--and it can be expanded further, for a quick check shows he has other publications as well. And there was a usable third party published source to support the article. (and I had enough time to do it since there wasn't much to do, and i try to do people like that when I can--nobody is obliged to.But it is always better to rescue the article, be WP:Deletion policy. If I had wanted to do so and had not time immediately, I could have blanked the article, put up an underconstruction tag, and gone back later, because one cannot leave a copyvio visible. Furthermore, you are quite right I should have checked whether it was a copy from WP, but it didnt sound like one. Unless its something obvious like answers.com, it can be hard to tell. DGG (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I absolutely refuse to edit articles. I've left that duty to my betters. Why don't you try to fix the problems that hamper good reading out of Wikipedia? I come here often to learn something new. I don't like being jerked around by anybody, whether those guilty of breaking all the rules, or you who wants to ignore it and shove a boot up my ass for complaining! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Complain here if you like, I am quite used to it, but dont make personal attacks. You may even be right on the matter at issue, but the way you are discussing it at the article will not help. DGG (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you were extremely concise and better at it than I. Perhaps I wont even do the objections anymore. I am not so gifted in terse tact. I do though, mean to protect other editors by exposing the meanspirited nature of these malcontents as to the welfare of the article. One is trying to shift the focus onto me, as though I am Korismo/ICarrier. I did read most of his posts, but he's actually a newcomer to the article and I am not. I will not explain myself further, just know that a checkuser is useless. Go ahead anyways and break these twinks' hearts. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In view of some edits you just made there, I thought it necessary to semi-protect the talk page.Personally,I'm not going to deal with the category question till after the holiday. DGG (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER TO YOUR COMMENT Hello, Thanks for your comment (see below). I work on the history of linguistics in the premodern period. William Chomsky is important because of his work on early hebrew grammarians, such as David Kimhi. I have recreated the page with a more standard name (i.e. not including the dates in the titile page).

I have included more bibliographical references.

I have removed the link to his son's page because that is not really relevant for explaining the importance of his work.

Best wishes (talk) YOUR COMMENT A tag has been placed on William Chomsky (1896–1977) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered from your reference he had been a professor at Gratz College, a noted theological school, so he might well be notable, and I declined the speedy. But i did not check for further bio or publications, and you will need this to show notability. There may be further info in a bio about his son. Or consult a librarian for help with printed sources, since he worked in the pre-internet era. I've put an underconstruction tag on, which should give you a week to do it. DGG (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

DGG, as one of the cooler heads here, and one of the administrators I respect the most, your input would be valuable and appreciated at User:Jerry/RFC on CSD's for userpages. An anon and my myself have been disagreeing on the interpretation of policy on my talkpage which had disintegrated into namecalling (by him) which I put an end to with this RFC. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AN/I mentioned on your talk page is relevant, I tend to agree with you, but its clear at the AN/I not everyone does. DGG (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG! I asked Alison this, but sie seems to be busy - and it looks like you've addressed the situation, so I want your reasoning.

How does one determine copyright violations? I was looking at E. W. Bullinger, in which there are several sentences that are exactly the same as on [24]. But a) it's certainly not a major part of the article, and b) I don't know which came first - we've had the article since 2003, and the "offending" sentences seem to have been introduced back then: [25].

I see that you re-wrote the sentences - but is that standard? How does one tell which one was written first? At what point does the article need to be deleted? And at what point can the article stay, but copy-vio revisions need to be deleted? I'm very confused about all this... :) Thanks for your help! - I'll watch this page for a response. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when you come across a few sentences that are not essential to the article, regardless of when they were introduced, there are two choices: either rewrite them on the basis of the source, or remove them. Even if the WP article came first, there isn't much text in WP that cannot be improved somewhat by a careful rewriting, so you are almost certain to improve the article. If it affects the bulk of an article or the notability, there's a third choice if neither seems practical, which is to nominate for deletion. Telling which came first can be an uncertain detective exercise, except when there are clear dates on the source. Rewriting is usually safest. DGG (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunh. Okay - thanks for the advice - much appreciated!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable source examples about the essay tag, and I wanted to get your input on some questions there. Thanks! --Tenebrae (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: you previously contributed to/edited the 1st AfD discussion about XMonad. XMonad has again been nominated for deletion; as you previously edited, I thought you would like to know. (I have also contacted all the other non-anon editors.) If you no longer care, please feel free to ignore this. Thanks. --Gwern (contribs) 02:03 24 December 2007 (GMT) Thanks--in fact, based on the new info, i changed my position. DGG (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to get a preliminary head-count for the AMNH tour happening before the meet-up. If you think you would like to go, please sign up at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#AMHN tour sign-up. Thanks! ScienceApologist (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Daniel Malakov. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eileivgyrt (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - 2nd email with an idea. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, saw you tossed the deletion proposal on Syrian (horse). Maybe you can help, I used the subst:prod|reason template, but it was completely and automatically replaced by the one that was shown at the time you tossed it. I could not figure out how to make my reasons stay on the darn thing! So what I did was put the reason over on the talk page until I figured out how to make the template behave, which I still haven't managed to do. Can you help? Montanabw^(talk) 06:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even suitable for merge, IMHO. There is no content in it suitable for a merge (see Arabian horse, details on when WAHO admits stud books and when they do not is beyond the scope of the article, which already has about 95 footnotes as it is). Though maybe just blanking and a redirect is easier than merging. I'm open to your feedback. I just think it needs to be gone. I cannot find any reference to it on the web anywhere other than places like "Susie's horse page", where even imaginary breeds seem to be listed (or someone thinks the Windsor Grey is a breed, sigh). Syrian Arabs aren't even really a subtype, it was just, I think, a classification someone cooked up for the horses in Syria before WAHO approved their studbook.

And for future reference, should I use {{subst:prod|reason|list reason here}} or {{subst:prod|reason=list reason here}}? And can you embed links in a reason, or was that also what made it fussy? Montanabw^(talk) 21:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

use an even simpler template,to give an exact relevant example {{subst:prod|no references to show exists as a distinct breed}}. I would avoid putting links within a template--use the talk page. DGG (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, D, I noticed your comment and wanted to check with you on this and this. An editor is going around applying WP:N to the contents of articles...is that being applied correctly to alumni of an article's subject school? Dreadstar † 19:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dreadstar † 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an e-mail like you said. Seth71 (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in saving Charles Henry King. I really admire your fortitude in wading through the afd and trying to at least keep a copy of the deleted material. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC) (King is Gerald ford's grandfather)--Kept--DGG.[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, See a man about a horse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/See a man about a horse. Thank you. Alfadog (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!

Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.

I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.

Thanks again.

An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you well, and truly hope that my doubts about the nomination will be altogether unjustified.DGG (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for informing me of the requirement for this tag. I have always been a firm believer in User:Shanes/Why tags are evil, and was unaware of the requirement that you specify. In the past I have gone through and removed these tags from all articles where the tag was there with no active editing for >3 months, and the number was extraordinary! So I feel this tag is often abused, and really quite unnecessary on the article itself. I am sure admins read talk pages before deleting, so I always thought that was a better place for this type of editor-only communication. But I will comply with your request. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think you may have misunderstood slightly. After 3 months with no action, certainly remove the tag! and if you can leave a note for the guy who placed it reminding him to work on the article. But it should stay for at least a week. The article Military railways about which i was talking had been in place only since yesterday. With a little more experience as an administrator you will learn not to assume too much about the perfect carefulness of all your fellow administrators, especially when they succumb to the human tendency to work a little too fast or when they are a little tired. --and there are also ordinary editors too who could place a tag and send it to an unnecessary AfD. Tags in general, that's another question--for later. You are quite right that the tag is often used wrong--and i myself am sometimes guilty of not exactly abusing it, but forgetting about going back to the article. DGG (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As always, pleasant to chat with you. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look over Yossi Lazaroff as well as it's talk page. This seems a clear WP:CSD#A7, and is composed solely of quotes from the subject. Does the {{underconstruction}} give this article a 7-day free pass? JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I am impressed at how well you can explain things in such a manner as to make it easy for me to understand your rationale. That's so much better than "per WP:CDJhHDUDDH#223", and actually shows that you put some thought into it, and that you took the time to consider whether it should be an exception to a rule, and if it was covered by a rule at all. I can learn alot from you, if you have the patience. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things an admin needs is patience. There is so much junk to get rid of, for one thing, that it has to be done carefully to be done right. fortunately, many people like you have joined the ranks, and there are now over 1000 active admins, so we can clean up things thoroughly and cautiously. there are a great many considerations to keep track of--this is a big place, and probably not a single one of us knows all the corners. One advantage of going by consensus instead of purely individual decision is that what I dont think of, someone else will. It's OK to go slowly--the improvement of WP doesnt depend on any one of us alone and doesnt have to be done by this time tomorrow. DGG (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you remember, but you were one of the people who approved my RfA... I figure if I can learn from anyone, it has to be someone that was smart enough to make that call <grin>. And believe it or not, it's been your good example in the recent past that has steered me away from deletionism. About the article cited above: I think I owe you an explanation, if for no other reason than you've set me a good example in the past (for instance, Royal Batteries, as I think it was called). I came upon the article in its first state when it was tagged for speedy deletion; I declined that opportunity and said so on the talk page, since as near as I could tell the author was working on the article. I also provided my input, for what it was worth, that there wasn't anything much in the article about its subject and that it needed to have more information that demonstrated the notability of the subject, pointed to the relevant policies, and warned the author that it needed to happen quickly because the next admin along might delete it. (To the best of my recollection, it didn't have an "under construction" tag at the time, just a "hangon" tag.) I wasn't surprised to see that it had been deleted, but I was surprised to see it return word for word with an aggrieved author claiming we were all being rude and apparently uncaring. I didn't re-tag it, since it had an "under construction" tag on it, but when I saw it had gone to AfD, I did research it and suggest that the information would be better off under a different heading... I really have learned from you that if there's something there to salvage, I salvage it if possible, but I didn't think this article was salvageable under its current title.

These days, I still do new page patrol, but I don't delete anything unless it's really clear-cut -- the frequency with which I decline a speedy tag has tripled or quadrupled, and I spend a lot more time trying to guide new editors into creating better articles. I don't really mind what happens to the Lazaroff article one way or the other -- although I think it would be better off as an article about the Chabad Centre -- but it bothered me to think that I was going against your good example. It's taking me a while, but I'm more inclusionist every day ... I don't know if it makes any difference in the instant case, but I didn't want you to think that your example (or your confidence expressed in my RfA) had gone for naught. Sorry if I have gone on and on here, it's the curse of being an excellent typist... thanks for your time. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to the chabad center may be the way to go, but then it is sometimes difficult to maintain articles about campus organisations--see WikiProject Universities--and all the dicussions about campus clubs, where i usually say to delete. A agreement on how to do these has been tried, but has never held. A good case could be made for preferring the organisation, for over the years they will have many rabbis, who can then be added. There is a little precedent for the chaplains at really major universities being notable, tho only sometimes. Obviously, most of them won';t be, and if nothing much is added I will change my opinion to yours. DGG (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you compare the deleted version of Humanifesto with the reposted version to verify if its a db-repost or if a new AfD is warrented? Thanks. Mbisanz (talk) 07:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current one is a much shorter and better article. I've emailed you the orig--it is possible the quality of the article affected the decision, so I'd do a new Afd. DGG (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got the email, I still have issues with a band whose source is myspace and has no notable members, so I'll wait a couple weeks and AfD it unless something changes. Mbisanz (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not even look at that aspect, as I tend to make really stupid mistakes when i try to judge notability in such areas. DGG (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you would've read this, but considering when it was posted, I'd figure I'll point it out to you [26]. Even assuming 5% of those images had a mangled source or were orphaned due to an inexperienced user, that still several thousand good images that are being lost due to automated deletion. I've put in a request to WP:AWB for a tool to at least let me tackle the "article=" variable a bit faster, if they can't do it, I'll put into WP:BAG. Regardless, I think an open-source non-free image tagger bot is needed to make sure we are tagging only non-compliant and unsalvageable images. Mbisanz (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agree completely, and will do what i can to help, but I dont normally work with images. Consider also WP:VP. Do you know how to write bots? I do not. If needed, it is possible to do a great deal manually. I will if necessary learn, if you/ll coach me. DGG (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems that there is a category of iamges with a fair use template, but missing the article variable here Category:Non-free images lacking article backlink, but everything must still be done by hand to transpose the file links. There is a script for single article file links, but it looks like its already been run. I've worked up two proposals here User:Mbisanz/ImageSystemProposal that might help the fair use problem, but I'm not a coder, so I'm working to find individuals who are and might want to tackle this. I've heard that BcB can be run at up to 5,000 edits an hour without breaking the en-pedia, and its a scary thought to think that mass deletions can be done at probably the same speed. Mbisanz (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have inadvertently stepped into a very nasty situation on the James I, where I have supported the current version of the page but merely pointed out that the category Category:LGBT royals was not sustainable for the reason that the parent category makes it clear that people only belong in the subcategories when their sexual orientation or gender identity is known and not debated by historians.. This should not be controversial, since putting somebody in a category needs to NPOV like everything else in wikipedia, and putting someone in a category where some he does not belong at all clearly violates NPOV. I explained that "Category:People who may have been gay" would be OK, but "Category:Gay" or anything similar cannot be justified.

All I did was try to mediate in a ongoing dispute. I took the position that the article was fine and could only see one tiny problem, something I thought was obviously just a mistake and could not possibly be controversial. For this I get a stream of vile abuse and nastiness along with endless obfuscation.

It has been implied repeatedly that I have some kind of axe to grind here, that I am a gay-bash er and I suffered a series of truly brutal personal attacks from User:Jeffpw such as I have dealt with lobojo before, and he is a remarkably unpleasant editor, who truly pushes POV--to the point of violating policy, in fact. I made short work of him last time. I have no doubt the work will be even shorter, now. My only previous dealing with this user was when he posted to the ANI board about some minor dispute here naming me and shamelessly twisting my words without notifying me. When I made a polite complaint to him about this, he again immediately became aggressive, and removed my posts.

I had forgot about him completely until yesterday when someone asked for his views on the matter [27]. I chimed in with a constructive comment that he deleted without explanation.

I really don't need this in my life, I don't need all these nasty accusation and aspersions against my character over such a trivial issue. This horribleness continues on the talk page for the article where Jeff continues to baselessly question my good faith, making endless ad-hom attack on me, and avoids addressing the actual very simple issue at hand.

How should I proceed in this situation? Lobojo (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment on your talk p. DGG (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No problem with the warning and stuff, I realise it's a part of the job. The SandyGeorgia thing had been in my past (pre-Admin even) but the circumstances were a little fraught at the time. Ceoil is annoying me a bit at the mo with his "how dare you unblock" if only because I unblocked him less than a week ago - I don't demand gratitude, but... Anyhow, the good admins sail their own course by whatever they believe is for the best for the encyclopedia. Always act for the right reasons and consensus follows. Mostly. :~) Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot... I didn't write legal memo's - I used to instruct solicitors, barristers, QC's... and, no, I don't believe I ever said "fuck" outside of quotation marks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I misunderstood, I apologize; I did not trace the matter all the way back. But the immediate matter seemed clear to me, and still does. But that's why I would not act without support. I am not among those who want to sail my own course in taking administrative actions. I hope that even with more experience, i will retain the same attitude towards using them. DGG (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I hope I have put this in the right place - feel free to delete if not!! Can you let me know if the verification I am adding is the type people are likely to be expecting? Thanks!Lynn Huggins - Cooper (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not know how to change the reason. You have my permission to do so. I've noticed that when I delete from AfD now, a screen comes up with a few limited options. How do I change this? Should I just type in the reason? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, just select other in the top box, and type what you want in the bottom. You cant actually change the reason in a deletion history; the best that can be done is to restore with an explanation, and then delete with the proper reason. I'll show you on this one. DGG (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of that page does not even know the difference between the 1871 Boston Red Stockings and the 1901 Boston Red Sox, it casts doubt on the veracity of the page as a whole. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if that;s the way the article reads, there are stronger tags than notability for that purpose, such as {{disputed}}, or even {{totallydisputed}}. DGG (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give the writer a little while to see if he does any better or if he thinks he's done. Meanwhile, I'll do some research and see if the guy really existed and if the article is generally true or not, and if so, will update as appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]