User talk:DGG/Archive 9 Oct. 2007

With the 'late at night' disclaimer, which article/discussion are we talking about?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: ok, I've figured that out :) Note that I use 'crank' only because I am citing a guideline using it, it's not a word I'd chose myself otherwise (per WP:CIV issues). That said, if a minor scholar's work is mostly ignored and only severly criticized in the only two academic reviews that look at it, I fail to see how it can be considered reliable enough to cite anywhere but in article about that minor scholar or his views. A good analogy is: if I get a PhD from history, go to work at some minor NGO or governmental outlet, publish a book at a minor/unknown publisher with some controversial claims not confirmed by any other source and get heavily criticized in two academic reviews by more reliable scholars: are you saying my work can still be cited on Wikipedia?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it can, and if the topic is discussed it should. But the articles by other people attacking the work should also been cited , and the arguments of both sides briefly presented. Since your work-- as postulated-- will have been erratic and incompetent, the arguments against it will be very strong, and the arguments for it, no matter how well presented, weak. the readers will realize it & judge for themselves.

This is not my original idea; I follow in this very closely the classic liberalism of J. S. Mill. Intellectual honesty, whether in academic writing or in public discourse, requires all arguments to be presented as well as they can be; otherwise it counts as propaganda. In most academic writing or public advocacy, one of course then draws a conclusion about the relative strength of the argument. In writing for a newspaper or an encyclopedia, one does not draw an opinion, but simply presents both sides. The only place a newspaper can express its opinion is in its editorials, which are mere arguments and carry no authority as evidence for anything. There is no place where an encyclopedia can properly express an opinion, thought it can and should honestly quote the opinions of others--all others.

I understand the provision to omit totally weird positions to mean that if nobody has noticed the author's theory but the author, then it need not & should not be presented--the usual WP standard of notability. DGG 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(comment from : User talk:Netkinetic Please be careful to maintain a neutral tone in edit summaries "sorry, John, you arent notable enough for wikipedia" -- even when people are not notable, that dismissive over-personal wording is not appropriate. And to actually use it as an edit summary on both the article and the talk p. of the editor, is, in my opinion, getting close to WP:BITE.

(Anyway, that is not the standard for speedy--speedy is no assertion of notability. The statement that someone is a professor somewhere is a clear assertion. )

Before nominating people in unfmiliar fields for deleteion especially with speedy,it is considered to be a good idea to check at least google, and, for someone for whom it might be relevant, GoogleScholar. When I was new here, I sent some articles to AfD about people in sports I knew little about, and I learned a great deal from the reaction. Think for a minute whether a full professor at UC Santa Cruz who developed a notable theory is likely to non-notable. Your excellent vandal fightinng is muc appreciated by all us admins, but please don't make unnecessary work for us.

Actually it would be an even better idea of the editor himself added some more suitable content to his {{db-bio}} violating article. Self-promotion is not what Wikipedia is about and, as an administrator, I would think you would know this. The edit summary may have been a little bit over the top, but "over-personal"? Any objective editor coming across that article would surmise from the creation and verbage of that article that it was auto-biographical, even you admitted that in your response on both the registered and anon talk pages. Editors address each other by name frequently in edit summaries, and if they reveal their personal name, that is fair-game as well. Hopefully your break until July 4th will provide some sufficient time to allow for self-reflection on the principles and guidelines WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:POV before summarily dismissing an article deserving of speedy delete consideration. Regards and be well. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple days ago you made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles#verifiable "There should be another project to examine the articles for which references can not be found", I suggested WP:AfD was that project. Now I have found Jian Yong and posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_articles#Challenging article to reference Take a look, is it a candidate to springboard a new not AfD project off of? Unless I missed something this one is looks like a notable historical person, with a fictional current character (minor?), and no reliable English language references. Jeepday (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising, isn't it? You're a fervent inclusionist and I'm a rabid deletionist, and yet we almost always act in the same direction. I suppose your yin balances my yan and we end up somewhere in a fairly reasonable middle.

It still makes you think-- if we end up agreeing so often despite our fundamentally different approaches it probably means Sturgeon's Law is on the nose as always.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, on a semi-related note, I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twyana Davis last night since you speedied it. I'm no expert, can you confirm I did it right? — Coren ^(talk) 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, personally, I'd be in favor of a policy that said that admins should not speedy article unless tagged by someone else. Checks and balances and all that. With reasonable exceptions, perhaps, for G10 and G12 since the very existence of those articles is damaging. — Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess we just have different interpretations of notability, perhaps based on our personal experiences. I don't consider myself "notable" even though I have more pubs than Peratt and have served as Associate Editor for three different journals versus his one. Those are just the normal things that we do. (Mainstream versus non-mainstream is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.) It's a borderline case, as you say. Raymond Arritt 02:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At some point the normal things one does become notable, if they are good enough. I will check the citation count for yours'. As for me, I'm safe: my citation counts are very low. (smile). DGG (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heh, maybe I'll end up AfD'ing myself for lack of notability. That could be fun in a quasi-dadaist way. Cheers -Raymond Arritt 02:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually happened that way with a biologist around here- but he was held to be sufficiently important that he'd get the article anyway. He's gotten used to it. DGG (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you tagged this article... I have made some example improvements to it and left a note on the talk page, if you have any comment I'd be interested. This seems like as good a project as any to spend a few hours on JSTOR making some improvements. --W.marsh 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BirgitteSB made an interesting sugggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification#Not sure what I think about this proposal in short "{{RFV}} may only be used on articles articles less then a week old." It address many concerns of those opposed. It clarifies that this is tool for encouraging referencing and limits (severely) the potential for misuse. Think about it for a minute then please come and share your thoughts. Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied, in brief, that it would violate WP:STUB as currently written. DGG (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, you had left me a note about opening a discussions on mass-noms at AfD, and I'd be happy to participate if you've created it, or aid in the creation if not yet. Just let me know what I can do. Thanks!! Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I view that the burden is to assert notability. An award which is not obviously notable, like the grade 8 Canadian history award won by Mr. Deeprose, does not get you over that hurdle. For all the world knows this is the highest of the 8 levels of history award given by the Canadian government and personally awarded by the Queen. I doubt it, and unless it's obvious no one should have to assume it to say that there's an "assertion" there that merits avoidance of a7. You just need to get over that 1st hurdle, assertion, barring pure bollocks such as "king of the world", for once you've made it over that hurdle it's off to afd land or prod ville. As you may be able to tell from my edit history, many originally tagged speedies get sent by me there or I notify the tagger that speedy isn't right, maybe afd would be. As to trust, part of the trust is to prevent bollocks or non-notable articles from being on the site so that it remains an encyclopedia where people can trust the information, and doesn't become the yellow pages or myspace or youtube or ebay. When someone objects on my talk page, as you have seen, I am willing to restore or not object to restoration of the article, barring copyvio or attack situations. It doesn't mean that the article will or should survive an afd, because I will often send it there to find what the community thinks, as you might have also seen - not that I give you notice each time that I do it :-). Some of these issues really ought to be discussed at CSD page because there is a fundamental good-faith difference of opinion among editors, admins, and the community.

By the way, as an experiment, I made a little list of articles I looked at and wondered whether (sorry if I personalize this, I mean no disparagement) you would agree with my delete assessment. I put that little list in a word file, but did not act on any of the "closer" articles, but will check in a little bit. I'll be curious to see how many have not been deleted in the interim, how many have, and how many by you. Ultimately, I try to be fair - to the author but also the encyclopedia - when things are outside a7 land, I call it that way. I assume that you do the same. Carlossuarez46 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone of us looks for something different, and there are 1200 of us. You have no need to convince me you do most things right. I am sure we each make mistakes, and I am sure there are places where we disagree. The choice in CSD patrol is not keep/delete--it's keep/afd/prod/leave for another admin/delete. Most people watch the articles they put speedies on, and if they disagree with me & want to pursue it, they can go to afd in a perfectly friendly way with my blessing. I notice at Deletion Review that I almost always disagree with the people who say to get the right result regardless of process.--I think following the rules is the way to minimize conflicts over their interpretation. If you want to see what I decline to delete, there's an easier way--just look at my contributions. I leave a clear summary. 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still trying to learn and one way is to see what others with whom you don't always agree do and see if you can learn from that. There are a couple of inclusionist admins that I want to understand that philosophy better from them. I do note that I got overturned at a DRV for an article I on a personal level would have loved to delete, by calling a "no consensus" close. I was baffled that it was overturned but not deleted, as the editor bringing it to DRV sought. I suppose the closer relisted at afd despite no new arguments one way or another at DRV. My prediction is that it'll be deleted, without any new arguments presented. Sometimes you can't win for losing. :-) Carlossuarez46 04:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I realize that I'm in the minority more than not: see my user page and you'll see little majoritarian about me (but I do hope that being a Democrat in 2008 will be majoritarian :0). We should work together; I have utmost respect for people with whom I disagree when the disagreement is in good faith and civil - which this has been. I even offered to nominate for RFA one of the guys I can count on !voting to keep anything I'd like deleted because no matter how strongly we disagreed he always has a good faith argument (that I just disagree with, as he does mine) and is civil. Where do you suggest we cooperate. Carlossuarez46 05:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Slightly more "real" than Mr. Deeprose above, what do you think of Brendan J Smith? He does have awards. Carlossuarez46 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't come across any deWP articles as you describe, but as you might expect I am sympathetic to articles that aren't in English - I moved one speedy tagged one to translation depot today because there was no obvious equivalent in Turkish, my best guess as to the language, I only have a tr-1 babelbox, and can't be entirely sure that it isn't Turkmeni or another related language in Turkish orthography (it certainly isn't Azeri), but I digress. There are lots of Catalan articles that ought to be translated into English about bios & ancient history (my favorite area). My reading of Catalan is probably 95% comprehension if done slowly - knowing Spanish gets one most of the way there and honestly it's much easier to read than to translate by hearing (ditto Portuguese but contra Italian which sounds much more like Spanish than it reads, go figure). My German, with a dictionary, can approach 90+% on non-technical subjects. The issue I have, which I raised but never got addressed at the requested translations pages, was how do translations comply with GFDL? Don't the original foreign editors whose work is being translated deserve history credit too. I'm not super hung up about my words but I wouldn't project that (probably nonmajoritarian) view onto others, particularly Europeans, as Europe has a strong ethic of protecting authors' rights. I have edited some but not substantively on de, ca, es, pt, it, scn, nl, a few others that escape me but I much prefer writing in English as I do most of my thinking and conversing in it nowadays - other than my family and few childhood friends - I can't remember the last time I had a long conversation in Spanish. So if you point me to some of the German ones, I'd be glad to help - even if only to find sources. Carlossuarez46 06:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Civil disagreement should not jeopardize rapport. I trust that works both ways. I have not noticed a strong "better as a cat" movement at the afd debates as you mention, but as a courtesy rather than question the observation or how strong such a position is (by numbers), I attempted to rebut what I worry would be the effects of these sorts of cats. No bashing, no accusations, just what'll we look like with hundreds of ...popular culture categories to either supplement or replace the articles. Carlossuarez46 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. A quick question for you on notability - you declined to delete a village definition (Adamant, Vermont) as you said all villages (and presumably therefore by extension all towns, cities etc.) are notable in WP. Is this official policy ? Does this also apply to articles on schools, colleges etc. - whilst it's unlikely you could ever accuse someone of 'blatantly advertising' a town, it is possible to write an article about an educational establishment that's phrased in such a way as to attract positive attention. Are all educational establishments also notable, and if not, whats the 'notability criteria' ? CultureDrone 09:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Long response at your page -DGG[reply]

Dear DGG, at the suggestion of DES, I am extending an invitation for you to read and review a project I've been working on, under the guidance of, and suggestions from DES.

After posting my thoughts on the TTR talk page, and discussions with DES and Carcharoth, Carcharoth asked if I'd be willing to put my talk page thoughts into an essay, as mentioned on the DTTR talk page, and at DES's added suggestions, I decided to go ahead and take a stab at it. Here is the initial draft of the essay. As of now, the essay is not public, DES and Chrislk02 are the only ones who have taken a look at it during its initial creation. DES and I have a fairly lengthy discussion on the talk page, as well. However, now that I've taken his early suggestions, and have finished all the sections, I'm ready to move into further discussion of the essay, aimed towards any improvements in format, layout, content, etc. I have invited Until(1 == 2) and IPSOS to take a look as well. If your schedule allows you the time, any wisdom, insights, or suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated. ^Ariel♥Gold 17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, I want to first of all, thank you so much for the time, and effort you took to put together your thoughts on the above. I've read through them, and I'll go through them several times to get more ideas and understanding. I'll add more on the essay's talk page, but just wanted to drop you a big thank you! ^Ariel♥Gold 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you think that mythological references indicate nothing much--this is a private value judgement of your own. I think that's what adds to the culture density and significance of games. The makers of the games certainly seem to agree with me, as do the players

In my case, I gather that you have an unfounded belief in your mind-reading skills and/or problems with reading the plain English of my statement. Please don't project your peculiar interpretations onto my actual words, please. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(My comment followed your "Hello, another useless and random collection of factoids, documenting where a bunch of unrelated writers drop in cheap pseudo-mythical references to prop up their stories. Whoop-de-do." I consider it fair comment on a somewhat scornful posting, well within the practice at AfD. You don't find me complaining on people's talk pages about the comments they make at AfD. DGG (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guy, it was great to meet one of my mentors. My brother and I both had a good time, although he think's I'm a Wikipediholic. Thanks again for answering my random questions. Bearian 15:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, whenever I've seen your contributions in any of various places around WP, I've consistently considered your remarks to be well-considered, balanced, and reflective of some of the better aspects of WP in general. Best regards for your efforts. dr.ef.tymac 15:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the Village Pump policy section? Or just write a new schools notability proposal? VanTucky ^(talk) 03:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It needs wording tweaking, but I like the general idea. Requiring sources confirming its existence (we need to be clear, is it only public schools within a district?) and location prevents an apparent disregard for the core policies of WP:V and WP:RS. Again, I personally still don't think hs are considered even mostly notable, rather than completely. But this is a reasonable compromise that adheres to the spirit of policy, so we can see where it goes. I agree that a firm ruling on this is most important here. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG and very welcome onboard the WikiProject True Origins. Very honored and pleased to get someone of your experience and a knowledgable articles SAR admin I have seen you are also in the WikiProjects Council which I recently joined, and you are also colleague of another participant of the WP:TORIG, I am sure Librarian2 will appreciate that. Nice to share Wikispace with you Daoken 18:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Would I add a section called "defense" or something? How do you recommend that I go about it?17:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Carniv

I would suggest continuing the section on animal rights campaign with an equal length discussion of her statements, those from the university, and those of her supporters. Don't give extensive quotes, but do give references. I would also add a section of Scientific Work, and discuss her actual scientific work and list major publications especially as referred to in the controversy. They should all be in PubMed, which also indicates other articles referring to them. Include a mention of her degrees and any awards--her official website is a suitable source for noncontroversial details like that. Let me know if you'd like me to take a look. DGG (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the page for Dr. Carroll's research, would you mind taking a quick look and letting me know if there are any other changes needed before removing the NPOV? Thanks! Umn student 06:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added another article to the sandbox page, User talk:Journals88/sandbox, using your advice from the previous article. Would you be able to critique and make sure it is not a COI? Thank you for your help and sorry I have been taking so long to get back to you.Journals88 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

try them now. DGG (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't have chance to reply to your message from the 28th until now. I think that looking at the history of that article, it is a chain with too many links which never change beyond two opposite colors. It is wise to try to salvage what can be repaired but unwise to try to salvage what is beyond repair, that, if kept, will continue to be a source of debate and never a good article, I would advise to let go and to create an article about the subject, say "Frauds in the name of medicine" or "Health frauds", make a good article about the subject, include a good section about QW which doesn't sound "puffed" and then, if desired by the defendants of QW, to create a redirection from QW entry or a very "cold" QW artcle linked. I just think is unwise what is going on and still more unwise to try to keep it going on (my opinion) looking through my experience in true life mediation of conflicts Daoken 08:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though such an article as you suggest--though you need a different title, as it is asking for endless disputation to use the word "frauds" in the title of anything-- would be a good idea, QuackWatch remains a highly notable organization, and an good article on it makes it clear that its publications are a usable source, though a POV one. For any subject at all, I'd strongly resist simply deleting an article because it will be subject to debate or even attack. That's letting the POV pushers control the encyclopedia. It's almost as harmful as permitting people to remove articles about themselves if they do not like the content. Perhaps a solution is to find a way of preventing individual editors from working on particular subjects. I'd like to see a NPOV noticeboard parallel to the one on RS. DGG (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I do not work for the said company. I am however a Business and Technology consultant and have fairly decent knowledge about Indian publishing industry and intend to put it details about all other publication companies and histories that are viable in an encyclopedia. I will be stating my details on the user page. thanks.

Geekgyan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekgyan (talk • contribs) 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you are employed by them, are doing it as a consultant for them or for the industry generally, WP:COI applies. And even if doing it as a friend of the company or the industry, or even if I were to do it--and I have written a number of such articles for journals I know--the same rules for content and objectivity apply. See your talk page for some further advice. DGG (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm happy to be corrected about M S Ramaiah School of Advanced Studies, but I do have a couple of questions, as I did look into WP:N before I Prodded, and they haven't asserted notability on the page (the external links don't appear to be reliable secondary sources). My other concern is about advertising. There's only been a single contributor of significance to that article, and that same editor has created (and had deleted) a number of individual articles on course at the School, and has also put links in to the school in inappropriate places. So, if you could direct me to the guideline about all university programs being inherently notable, along with any further comments you think are appropriate, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As submitted, the article was considerably spammy--take another look at the editing that I did. there's probably some more to go. The individual courses are, as you say, not notable, and I assume you've removed the inappropriate links. But this is a graduate university offering the PhD, and I am quite sure that it would be considered notable at AfD. All universities brought there have been, except for some correspondence schools, unaccredited institutions, and cases of crystal balling. Small colleges are disputed sometimes, I think on rare occasions successfully, but even they must go to AfD as PROD is only for those that won't be disputed. But the universities is only a de facto guideline based on current practice, which you are of course welcome to test & argue against at AfD. As for sourcing, except for BLP, the criterion is unreferenceable, not unreferenced. DGG (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation (and yes, I did remove those links).— Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a deletion review of an AFD which you were involved in. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Balancer 04:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/quotes

Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL. HAL: I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

See? :o) Guy (Help!) 11:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two cans of worms collide nicely - just discovered that the Arbuthnot Family used to live in Cork Street. All I need now is some kind of connection to Harry Potter & Scientology and I've completed the flamewar set — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Much appreciated. DGG (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied chez moi, and also copied to User:Johnbod/Books v Works, where I am trying to start a discussion - many thanks for kicking it off! Johnbod 00:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC) (continuing there) DGGDGG (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see your interest in policy. There's a lot here that needs improvement, and we depend on new people or returning people who have been away for a while, like yourself, for ideas, as there are so many things--like this--which have stagnated for lack of something really workable that meets the objections. But WP is a complex environments--there are thousands of people interested in these questions on an ongoing basis, and it helps to be familiar with the local techniques and customs of discussion--after all , you've written some articles about things like that. Polls are discouraged here, in favor of trying to evolve something by repeated back and forth that leaves all parties moderately satisfied. (I see your interest in deliberative bodies also, from the articles you work on). What I found works for me is participating in a large number of things without getting overly emotionally involved in them, and thus build up experience--and I'm still trying. It also helps other people have confidence in your work if you avoid trying to shortcut the established methods, as you did with the article I copied to your page. Articles that don't get accepted this month can be improved and accepted though the correct process next month. I hope you will see this as intended--help in your doing what you want to do, and encouragement. DGG (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So, is there a norm or policy here that says we're supposed to wait a month before bringing back an article? Basically, it wasn't deleted due to non-notability; it was more suspicion of spamming and the how-to tone of the original article (which was poorly slapped together because I was in a hurry). Well, you've seen the discussion about it. I guess we'll see what happens over at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 17. The funny thing is, TBSDY doesn't seem to remember me from last time. ;) I was the pet skunk guy (yup, it's me again). Captain Zyrain 09:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No there's no rule, but there is the experience that it very much helps to wait a few days or weeks and improve the article as much as possible. People at DR tend to look for any reason to reject the appeals, and I've seen enough of them to know that a really good article in all possible respects is the way to overcome that tendency. In this case, I'd look for a wider variety of sources, as I said on your talk page. Decisions done in a rush are not always the soundest. My personal practice is to wait for the next day before continuing. Till then... DGG (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page spent the prerequisite amount of time on AFD, a process which notably has no quorum. As such, I don't see anything wrong with the closing. >Radiant< 12:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am of the opinion that, since people relist discussions if for whatever reason they feel uncomfortable making a decision based on that, a relisting is not an admin decision but the lack of one. >Radiant< 09:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your comment on my talk page re. my blog which struck me as odd as I take you're suggesting that my blog is some commercial advertising portal for my practice with an inappropriate ref. to wikipedia. the blog, Plastic Surgery 101 is the antithesis of commercial and was something that I started precisely because I was so turned off with the nature of "blogs" about my specialty which were crass self-promotional ad copy. I think if you actually read both it and what's editorialized on a day to day basis that you'd come to a little different conclusion. The mention of wikipedia was in the context of an oncology article in that day's NYT focusing on an area (outside of my specialty these days)that I had written a fairly detailed wikipedia entry on from scratch on just the day before. I though that was ironic (as is the fact that my brother is an oncologist at the institution she's being treated at). Anyway, just wanted to set the record straight. Cheers! Rob03:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I drew no conclusions. It is your blog, after all, and you are a practicing physician. It is an extremely good blog, too, as far as I can tell, and serves very well to add to your prominence in the field. DGG (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments, DGG. I've been deliberately trying to balance the things that give me pleasure (discovering DYK has been a real encouragement) with the things that can be stressful, and in particular trying to avoid long bouts of work at AfD which can be a touch dispiriting at times. In retrospect, I think the original stress I mentioned was at least partly generated by the back problem -- it's certainly easier to keep things in proportion now that I can sit up again! Espresso Addict 05:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. I've come to enjoy reading your comments in many places and have developed considerable respect for your thoughtfulness, insight, and experience. So I have a question.

The policy on AfD criteria seems clear. It is not supposed to be used for articles in which the subject is intrinsically notable, but needs improvement in sourcing, POV removal, and other cleanup issues than can and should be done within the normal editing process. It should be used only for articles that clearly can't be improved to satisfy the non-negotiable requirements such as WP:NOTE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and so on. In other words, deletion should be a last resort, not a first resort.

However, I also see articles that clearly need improvement (sometimes a lot of improvement), get nominated for AfD and during the discussion process, receive the sourcing they need to establish notability and the consensus becomes keep (or no consensus defaulting to keep).

My problem in understanding this whole deletion process is that the AfD seems to act as a rallying flag (due to higher visibility of the AfD process) and articles get cleaned up sufficiently by "all night study sessions" (so to speak) to pass probation. So is this result a good byproduct of AfD, or not. I mean good in the sense that WP gets more articles, rather than less. And better than they were. Should AfD be construed as academic probation for articles, in addition to a pruning process for articles that shouldn't be in WP? Improve or expulsion? This collateral result seems to be more useful for those articles that otherwise just don't get the attention they really need. I suspect that sometimes due to the mix of editors that happen to participate, some articles just get deleted, rather than fixed. And I haven't really touched on articles that seem to be nominated for deletion mostly because someone doesn't like them, for whatever reasons. Any thoughts? Or is there a place this philosophical concept can be discussed in greater detail? — Becksguy 08:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the problem is that AfD is the only effective process for any problem with articles--we have no equivalent process for dealing with problematic content. If you examine Dispute resolution, and look at the fate of disputed articles, you will find that WP is helpless against pressure groups, and has no mechanism for assuring neutrality and adequate sourcing. There is only one kind of articles where quality can be consistently ensured--relatively non controversial topics with very high interest. Articles on major athletes, for example, are generally sourced, accurate, and readable. Even major politicians though controversial get good articles, because a wide range of people contribute, and the prejudices balance. But for everything else the article is dependent on the people who work on it. WP:OWN is a major problem, and can only be countered by trying to form an equivalently strong cabal. It is not quality which wins, but persistence, working friendships, and a skill at getting one's opponent to commit blockable offenses. Negligence too is a major problem, and so is lack of competence in research and writing.

I and most others have dozens--or hundreds--of articles in mind that are very poor or very biased, but where it would be a major effort to do anything. I've responded to RfCs, but I no longer do, for the article is invariably destroyed afterwards. There are some good areas--for instance chemistry, where fortunately the need to learn how to handle chemical formulas to do any writing at all serves as a barrier against degradation--similar considerations hold with programming languages, much of biology, and a good deal of linguistics.

The only solution I see is a parallel process for compulsory arbitration or binding group decision on content. I do not think it likely--but I don't want to go into the reasons right now.

Is there anything to be done? Yes, the increased participation of editors at AfD, and not just on the few of personal interest to them, in order to deal properly with more articles. Can anything be done to improve AfD? Certainly: agreement on following precedent and aiming at consistency instead of rejecting it; acceptance of reasonable compromises to remove definable classes of material like high schools from AfD; sanctions for disruptive nominations; extended period for discussion; limits on renomination of articles; follow-ups to see that merge does not equal destroy; a realisation that redirect is equivalent to delete, not keep; a requirement that anyone nominating an article show a reasonable attempt to find references; an easier and more frequent use of deletion review with sanctions against those who repeated make bad closes; improved visibility of deleted articles when needed for discussion--every one of them things that have been proposed, but rejected many times by those accustomed to working within the present system.

Can anything bring them about? Yes, a participation of new people in policy discussions as well as at individual AfDs. And a general change in attitude to realise that the best end to an AfD is an improved article, and that articles that are improvable should never get deleted in frustration at the difficulty of improving them. But it will take not just the recognition of problems and the proposing of reforms, but the actual work on rescuing articles. Commit yourself to doing one a week, or even one a month. There are many thousands of good editors here. If you do one a week, and so do 1000 other people, every rescuable article proposed for deletion at AfD or prod can be rescued, and most of the rewritable copyvios from CSD. One article at a time, as I say at the top of this talk page. DGG (talk)

Since you rate as the most inclusionist admin I have encountered, I have a request—which you may decline without ill effect to my opinion. Anyway, as I sweep through many articles, I find a great deal of poor to abysmal quality or simply inappropriate content. As an effect my watchlist gradually fills with actively edited, vanity, or WP:OWNed articles for which cleanup or tagging seems wholly inadequate. Attempted removal via a contested prod to AfD is almost inevitable. To avoid yet more DGG Keep votes in AfD, perhaps you would favor me with a quick scan of the following representative articles and give a brief pro or con opinion towards possible short-circuiting of a future AfD debate:

• • Dale Graham (CEO), resume/vanity page created to make subject stop stuffing his info in another Dale Grahm page.

'possibly non-notable but I cant judge in this subject---try AfD

• Dystopian society, local book club of small size and no particular notability. In-jokes abound

I just put a speedy tag on it as db-club

• Grassland Oregon and SucraSEED, propping each other up. Despite content claims, no great notability or importance is apparent (other products are similar). The creator has fought past deletion attempts and tagging. Maybe one page, but two?

yes, I advised them to combined the page under sucraseed. Next step is to place a merge tag. and I left a note about WP:BFAQ, which is the information page about this sort of article.

• Gregory W. Amos, single minor TV writing credit, self-biography

not my field, really but seems non notable. I placed a prod.

• Guambo, Prep school swim team article separate from school's article

I so far have always voted to delete these. But it's a important NYC private school with a good athletic reputation, and its a very well done article. It'll need to go to AfD, & I 'd expect a debate.

• Leighway newsletter, a small-distribution newsletter of environment issues for a localized area in Australia

Amost certainly not notable. I placed a prod. newspapers cant be speedied,.

• Phage meetings, author uses the article as a conferencing tool, e.g. Instructions Please feel free to advertise future phage meetings here

ah--my original specialty--needs reorganizing, & I'll keep an eye on it--I've already begun fixing it. Thanks for noticing.

• Pinalta, family scrapbook, no apparent significance to wine

:::obviously needs work--need to look more carefully--have you discussed it on the talk page.?

• Rakeops, local social group with their own patches. Jokey article

I try to remove articles on individual college clubs like this. sometimes I don't succeed. Good luck with getting rid of it.

• Reggae fusion, appears dicdef, but perhaps not
• not my thing--I never even comment in this area, so as not to appear a fool.
• The Pett Dynasty Problem, rambling first-person WP:OR, but looks like useful information may be embedded

I have my doubts about the whole thing--needs closer look. I usually !vote to delete family history, even when its coherent. This one will take some work.

• Ultimate ME2, fuel additive, although most of the article is spent slagging it

needs check at Google to see if its notable--who knows? Obvious POV problems

• West Suffolk Young Musician Competition, local area music competition

Usually these articles are not kept--usually I do not comment unless a particular classical musician seems notable. I see GRC found a cpyvio--that's always a convenient way. But if the organisation is really important i stubbify the article instead. Frankly, I figure if you think an article is not worth keeping, almost no one else will either and if you think it is, well I'm open to persuasion. If nothing else, this is an opportunity to promote your philosophical POV. Michael Devore 03:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I also frequent AfDs and will go through the articles to see if they can be improved. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRC, give me a chance to answer for myself.

If you look through the talk, you'll see some exchanges with even more inclusionist admins.(smile) If you look more carefully at AfD, you'll see the my articles I !vote to delete. If you look at my log, you'll see the many articles I do speedy-delete. Without specially working at it, I do many a week, more than most admins. I fully agree that a good part of what gets submitted here is junk, and a good deal of what continues existence from the early days is equally junk, and that in any case almost everything here need a thorough rewriting and better sourcing--and I have supported all projects intended to improve things.

I do not think I have the sort of influence you seem to imply. i can think of half a dozen articles at AfD now and the past week, that I've said delete and where the conclusion is keep, and certain many more where the opposite is the case. afD is supposed to be a discussion, and I like things to be discussed.

If you want to try to short circuit a debate, try WP:PROD. Perhaps nobody will object. I look through prods, and object to only about 5% of them. At AfD, I'd say that about 2/3 of the articles at AfD where I know enough to tell or to guess merit deletion. I don't bother jumping on the band-wagon, but save my efforts for the few where my opinion might make a difference.

I suppose you have some particular articles in mind where you think I argued wrong, so what are they? and I'll take another look & tell you what I think. As for these, tomorrow. DGG (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did make some efforts to improve those articles, but I did notice the last one as a copy vio. Anyway, I hope that helped some, let me know if I can help with anything else. Have a great night either way! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there exist (a few) more inclusionist editors, although I think you are more to that side than you may believe. Reading AfD, I often see you in a minority keep view in a dispute. I think you are around 4-1 against my own AfDs, but my point is about the overall record and trend of your recommendations. Regardless, that isn't the main reason for this proposal. Permit me a few sentences of exposition.

First, AfDs are resource intensive, consuming a lot of time and effort of a number of more-active editors. Second, the backlogs on many Wikipedia projects is nothing less than horrific, with a great need for more of those same resources. Third, with over 2 million articles here, a random sampling indicates that an easy ten to fifty thousand articles, with constant inflow, are likely to be useless or inappropriate and would fail a deletion review. Further, another two hundred to three hundred thousand articles are probably no better than poor quality, though basically "keepworthy" in theory.

Tagging is a proposed solution there, but the current backlog on wikify tags is over thirteen thousand; on cleanup, almost twenty-seven thousand. And they are but a subset of what could be tagged. So, tagging doesn't help much, and nowadays I try to clear a cleanup tag when I add a new one. With this mind, I consider a part of my work on Wikipedia to be triage; trying to sweep out the worst of the deluge.

What does this have to do with you? Well, AfD is a valuable resource and I'd prefer to use it only for the worst articles. You serve as an excellent high or low (take your preference) water mark. If I better understand what you and other inclusion-minded editors think is deletion-worthy, then I can better select strong candidates. Of course I prefer prod and speedy's too, but as I said earlier, vanity, WP:OWN'ed and actively edited articles are frequently contested or later reviewed/revived. Certainly AfD is an important consensus outlet and even borderline articles will need the process, but there are plenty editors for those candidates and I don't need to another be one. My preferred role is not arguing the minutiae of "just enough" notability or significance. As I said, if a certain flavor of article is something those of your viewpoint feel is ripe for deletion, it's probably going to be a low-impact AfD.

As for your own importance, my personal assessment of admins is that they have an importance heavily dependent on their activity level and their ability to not seriously piss off other admins or popular editors. You rate well on both those scales. Michael Devore 05:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look at AfD differently--it is not for the worst articles--the worst articles are for speedy or Prod. the more junk we can dispose of summarily the better, if we can do it fairly. Then, for most of the borderline content, we should have bright-line rules that make a rough sort without needing debate--a good example is the rules on athletes. For this part to work, we need compromise. I dont really think all high schools are notable, just 80% or so. But it is better to let the other 20% in , and save the argument. Similarly state legislators--I think 3/4 of them are not notable, but it doesnt bother me if we give them articles--anything is better than debating the notability of minor borderline politicians. Then we can discuss the difficult ones at AfD. I'd like to see the number at 60 a day, not 120, so we can do them justice. What we also need is a way of screening first to see what can be improved--rather than nominating by impressions. its always worth a check on G or GS--and Id support a requirement to do that. We also need so way of forcing improvement without having to threaten AfD--there have been various proposal, all too cumbersome to work.If you can find one, it will be a great accomplishment. The goal is to screen out the improvable stuff, and improve it. Any time at afd is fundamentally wasting in overhead what could be used for improving content.

Let me summarize what I said about your examples:

• 1 specialized article (phage) that needs major work and can be rescued--if I hadnt known the subject i might well have thought it not worth the rescue.
• 1 pair needing merging and de-spamming. thats best done outside afd.
• 6 clear speedies or prods--& afd if protested. Probably undefendable.
• 1 which ought to be deleted, & will need afd, but might be kept there (Guambo)
• 4 which will take some thinking, where I'd want to work on first before afd (ME2, Pett, Pinalta, reggae fusion)

I don't see we disagree much. My colleague GRC was a little more tentative, and merely tagged some of those I prodded.

a further explanation of what I will defend: i do have some things I will always defend, such as popular culture, where i think the move to delete is wrong on fundamental grounds, or articles about small political parties or religious sects, where I think the limitation of sources or NPOV require a great deal of tolerance, or matters which will clearly be major news stories of longterm notability. there are other things i would defend if I could--losing major party election candidates, executed criminals, victims or terrorism where enough is known. But i know the feeling is against me here & I'll only speak for the strongest. And, third, as an advocate, to ensure an adequate look instead of a rush to judgement.

I strongly don't feel you should be at all influenced by the need to avoid my opposition, but only if you are convinced by my arguments. But I will in turn look at your afd nomination and make some comments--and perhaps you will make some comments about what you think are the worst of my keeps. I want to know what you criticize--I make mistakes. If I'm seeing things wrong, I want to correct my way of looking. I only want to have an influence when I'm right--admitting there's an wide ground where either position can be right. go back and read my RfA--it was doubted whether I would close afds fairly--but as you may notice, i never close afds at all for fear of imposing my views. What i said I wanted to do as an admin is 1/to delete the junk I came across and 2/to be able to look at what has been deleted. That's all I really do, except protect on rare occasions when needed, & once a month or so to block, if there seems nothing else to do. DGG (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting data points, on two I thought were slam-dunks you didn't suggest outright deletion (and saved the Phage), plus you prod'ed or SD'ed a few I didn't think you would. A 50% match to my model at best; clearly I need more thinking on the idea. Perhaps there's an online game concept here: "match the editor". Or not. Anyway, thanks for your input, and for helping pare my watchlist a teeny. I'll decide later whether I want to take on a new AfD for any remaining articles here. Michael Devore 03:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly a disgruntled former editor who flamed out a few weeks ago. Rather transparently so, IMHO. Artw 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a hand here? I've just been called a liar for pointing out that the guy's link turns out to be to a review of an entirely different book (on the same topic)! As a historian and Christian (non-Mormon), I might have an unconscious bias against the topic; I'd like your input. --Orange Mike 19:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you did go a little too fast, possibly for the reason stated. But dont worry about the insults--they always backfire. DGG (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit embarassed by the incident, even if the guy is heavy on his POV-pushing. Maybe I'm not exactly ripe for the mop-and-bucket brigade yet. --Orange Mike 00:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. -- lucasbfr talk 15:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I see you deleted it as an expired PROD and then restored at request of the orig. ed., as a contested PROD, I don't see any deletion review, or that it needed one. I don't AfD all the contested PRODs that I place--generally, if someone responsible and highly competent (like you) thinks differently, that's good enough for me. But since you also expressed some doubts, let me think about it. DGG (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops I forgot the argument in the template, shame on me. He raised his objections on my talk page. As you know, the letter of PROD is that if there is any objection we should restore the article. Personally, I debated whether or not I should bring it to AfD, and since I didn't really made my mind that this article needed to be deleted I left it alone (No Concensus). -- lucasbfr talk 18:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An immediate rewrite would be a great idea, but I have no time and multiple huge projects. Can you do it? It's actually outlined okay, it's just the POV text is so crappy, maybe cutting and a quick and dirty rewrite would help? I would have followed my usual policy of rewriting, but I just don't have time. Still, it's an embarrassing AfD to even have, and that's the worst POV. KP Botany 17:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you and I part habits on the issue of daytime women's television.... ; KP Botany 17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, I think you may have inadvertently !voted twice on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endosomatophilia (you have an earlier contribution prior to relisting) I'm not sure whether the slate is thought to be wiped clean be a re-list, but you may want to do some strikeout to clarify any confusion. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 04:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have basicly surrendered wikipedia - there are to many people that are more interested in removing info than there are people interested in having an ongoing and developing project. --Striver - talk 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my RfA, and for pushing me and encouraging me to do it in the first place. Your comments at the RfA were too kind. Thanks again, and I hope to do my best. I thanked you personally in a few of the spams I've sent out. Bearian 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did try to find the notability rules for judges and couldn't. My bad. But I wasn't sure, that's why I stopped short of tagging all the judge articles the editor created, and only did two. The "This is a fair biography, and is not promotional" in the article creation edit summary was what caught my attention in the first place (that's the kind of thing someone who's re-creating a previously deleted article frequently writes). Precious Roy 21:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod sounds like a fine idea. Also, that other comment you commented on was in regards to WP:AFC, not WP:CSD. Cheers! Precious Roy 22:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving the Judges! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.213.106 (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your reason for this edit. Your edit summary is of an "unreliable attack", yet you have no evidence that the book is unreliable or if it is even an unfounded attack. You can justify your rational either here or on the article talkpage. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --- Replied on talk page. Just see the article on the book. DGG (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, I was trying to revise references in the article about Masterpapers.com company as tey seem to be incorrect by WP editors. I tried to add in-text citations and reference list according to WP citation templates, but I seemed to fail as reference list does not show resources. My article is suspended for speedy deletion due to lack of notability, and I think correct and proper referencing will help me much. I'd be very appreciated if you could help me with WP reference quidance. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterpapers (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC) I have adjusted the formatting to a simpler but reliable method of reference display..The PR material is weak, but it can be used to support routine statements., there are three very good refs at this point, including the NYT and BBC. Anyone who wishes to add additional material can now easily do so. I'm watching it to ensure it stays NPOV.DGG (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Hi dear, thanks for great help![reply]

Thank you for the reply. It was my mistake not to clarify the specific edit of yours, however I thought you will be aware of it as the huge topic on similar matter is started ( Before another revert war starts...). So, I am speaking about this specific edit of yours. Answering to you specific question, what source I want restore/not restored, well its topicality matter has dropped as this anti-Semitic source, which you restored, was eliminated by community; last garbage was scraped on 09-30. However I completely disagree with your position that unless anti-Semetic bias is relevant to the situation, I do not see why it would prevent use., because a) source was used to justify questionable things like ‘’while the Lithuanian government had a very clear anti-Polish policy’’ etc, b) its clearly correlates and with shameful rhetoric regarding Jewish population c) these are “remarks” “are” in the same source d) I do not see any indications how this “source” match WP:RS criteria. So any excuse to use this hatred language “source” is null and void. Actually I very proud of wikipedia community, which gave (except few individuals) unchallenged condemnation of this “source”. You wrote that great many European historians have arguably been anti-Semetic, well this situation is different, as this is not the same as, author’s XX book A should not be used as the same author’s XX earlier published book B is regarded as anti-Semitic, therefore book A should be also classified as anti-Semitic by default.

Going to your last remark about sysops invariably protect the wrong version. My answer, yes I perfectly know this, but a) there was no protect action on this page [1] b) your shameful edit summary (I hope this incident is resolved) indicates that you evaluated two versions (not blind revert) c) removed solid published book’s claims by labeling it as ‘’ POV additions’’, instead choose to preface well known “source” and weasel words version. Etc.

And last notes, could you clarify your suggestions in this article, do I correctly understand, you suggesting to leave English translation only? Regards, M.K. 11:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on an autoarchiving campaign lately and noticed your talk page gets real long real fast. If you want I can set up autoarchiving here. Not sure if you dont know how to do it or just dont want to, but I figured I'd offer. Lemme know.

Hi I have requested your opinion before and risking to abuse of your time, I will do it again. When I was verifying some sources at the article Radionics, I was observing that the editor took first one POV and edited and sourced in a quite consistent way and then she started to do the same with the contrary POV. Then a couple of editors cameover with a reverts war based on pure POV. I was observing and I was wondering how far could have she gone because I never saw an editor making that in a systematic well organized way as she was doing, I am sure she should have arrived to a good NPOV article with sources in both sides. When the editors became too near to risk a 3RR, one protected the page with almost all content deleted. It seems to me as a real injustice to leave all that arbitrary delete, but well, it was done. However, I could like if you could have the time to give a look there and give me your opinion, is that POV, edit war, plain inmaturity or what you can see there? Do you see there an incorrect delete of large quantity of content or am I wrong? Also it seems that one of the involved editors have deleted another article and then restored it to a point well before large content was added, can you retrieve the latest version before deletion? I could really like to give a look in it The article is Quantum Biology. As always thank you colleague. By the way, and on other subject, do you know anything about the NDLC filing system of old manuscripts? ℒibrarian2 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied separately about the articles, but manuscripts in general, and Eastern languages even more so, are not what I know about.DGG (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't about to start a mass MFD on anything, although I could see why some people might. As to userspace vs wikispace, I think a reasonable argument is to userfy essays that are written by a single person (typo fixes and such don't count), and barely linked from anywhere, and not very new. This should separate the widely-thought-about pages from the personal opinion pieces that nobody else appears to be interested in much. >Radiant< 08:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of course you wouldnt do a mass XfD--that was someone else's suggestion on your page. Maybe you do have a reasonable criterion here, and then I hope people will agree. the move would then be from user space to WP space if other people joined the discussion. Whew hen should this be proposed? It will be counterproductive if it gets involved in disputes on individual essays-- the last thing we need is more of those. I hope most people of good will with essays would agree with you. DGG (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In my experience, most essays are forgotten about in several months, so these can safely be moved. As far as I'm concerned, if there is any objection to that for an individual essay, I see no problem with retaining it in userspace. If people really object to having it there, MFD would be the place to discuss it. >Radiant< 08:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

did you mean, if there is any objection, there would be no problem retaining it is wikispace? Otherwise , Ive gotten a little confused about the thread--and will continue tomorrow. DGG (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. If people object to moving it out of wikispace, leaving it in wikispace is better than move warring. >Radiant< 09:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why this should be proposed for deletion. I only created this stub in response to an entry in the requested articles section under 'education' in wikipedia. I assumed that the organisation wanted this article/stub. If it doesn't, then someone should adjudicate the situation. Otherwise, I was wasting my time.

--Train guard 14:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, there is nothing in the article to clarify why this particular course of study is noteworthy (what we call around here "assertions of notability"). I think it has potential, but needs to be beefed up. --Orange Mike 15:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further examination, I think this, "The course was much criticised in the United States because of its emphasis upon questioning aspects of life, including belief and morality. It was particularly targetted by fundamentalist groups." constitutes an assertion of notability; I have removed the speedy tag. The article does, however, need sourcing and improvement. --Orange Mike 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Train guard, there is not really an "organisation". Anyone may post a request, and anyone may accept or decline it. And then it goes by the consensus. Although I have the capability to delete single-handed, I never use it except for removing vandalism. I only propose a deletion, and someone else decides. With full awareness that I will make errors, I rely on others to correct them. Anyone except the author--not just an admin--can remove a speedy tag. I can then decide whether to carry it to AfD, but I reexamine it with care first, because I trust the work of my reliable fellow editors such as Orange Mike. As usual, I think he was right. DGG (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I haven't even seen all the Star Wars movies yet. Bláthnaid 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG. I have a page on my company, The Vision Depot. You marked it as "blatant advertising", so it was set for speedy deletion. I reread the policies on advertising, and I changed my entire page so that it had only a couple pages introducing my company, and was content-rich in very useful information on machine vision and E-commerce. I turned it into an information page that abided by all of Wikipedia's standards, and I don't run an unremarkable business, either. Can you please tell me what I have to do to get my page back up and running? I would really appreciate it. Thank you. - jpweber —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpweber (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC) replied on your talk page with some advice. DGG (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for chiming in there, I've restored it. Dreadstar † 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I googled the subject and found a few references before deleting it, I thought the author might be better off building the article in a sandbox rather than "live" in the mainspace - if it meets notability requirements...glad you know something about the subject! Dreadstar † 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!!DGG (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem...nothing at all showed up on my snippiness-radar..;) I've seen your excellent comments on articles for deletion, so I definitely respect your work and your opinion. Any advice you have for me is more than welcome! Dreadstar † 02:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that the speedy was declined and why. When I added the CSD tag there was only one sentence in the article. Looking at the latest revision it seems to have been much improved. I'll try not to bite the newbies and watch things like this.

I certainly do appreciate things like this as I'm fairly new to vandalism and new pages patrols. --Tckma 02:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. There has been no attempt to delete articles on everyone connected with this college. I'm just trimming the schoolcruft. ExtraDry 07:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this works exactly but I'd like to see what the content of Marcus Intalex was if that's possible. Thanks.P4k 03:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-WarthogDemon 00:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a drop by really. :D Remembered many times a few months ago you helped sort out some confusion I made with speedies. (My late taggings seem to be correct now.) o.o; So just decided to stop and say hi. :) -WarthogDemon 00:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've become curious too. I am under the impression, (notably from Hodges The Enigma, Turing's biography) that the early computers were special-function devices. It was only with the British machine (forgot the name) and von Neumann et. al.'s paper, that the first general-purpose computers were constructed. What is of great interest to me also is the possible relationship between Turing and Stibitz, and Stibitz's little adder. Wouldn't you love to see the original? Build a model of it? Turing, I surmise, learned about Stibitz's relay binary adder and went off and built his multiplier as detailed in Hodges. Also Karl Zuse was hard at work for the Axis powers, in what appears to be a fully independent, parallel development.

Oh yeah, then there is the patent, or patents. Patents are in the public domain, and any parts of it could be reproduced on wikipedia.

I'm about a mile from the Dartmouth campus, so getting the photo of the plaque was easy. (I learned about it from the Valley News article on the talk page). The rest will be harder. I'm not a prof or a student, so my use of Baker library is limited to in-library use (maybe I can get a card, if need be). Maybe after a simple library search I will have to approach their researchers (if they let me) and request assistence. There may be someone at Dartmouth who is a "Stibitz expert"; the trick will be to locate them. I will search in the few books I know that discuss this era-- Hodges (Turing's bio), and a book by Martin Davis. BillWvbailey 13:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions sent by email. DGG (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egad. Once again the hungry internet beasties (aka, perhaps, my wife in her "I don't recognize this so delete" mode) have eaten another email. Would it be possible to re-transmit? Thanks, Bill Wvbailey 22:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Immanuel Lutheran Primary School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immanuel Lutheran Primary School. Thank you. --B. Wolterding 14:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering why the article 650 in Ireland can not be speedily deleted? Luke! 20:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC). I consider that a page in a series such as this that has even a single link such as this is worth at least a discussion. I'm not doing this as an admin--anyone except the author can remove a speedy, per WP:CSD. I think if you want to discuss, MfD is the place not AfD, but I am not sure. DGG (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you help, and for such kind words. I hope I can always live up to them. 1of3 05:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't blame you; thanks again. 1of3 15:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; you're absolutely right -- I have forgotten to notify about deletions a bunch of times, it's something I'm very bad about and need to work on. I did read through the article, but it struck me as pure advert copy -- neither sourced, properly styled, nor NPOV. I also didn't think there was much chance a school like this could be notable enough to have a an article outside of Syracuse's main page; upon further review, precedent absolutely seems to be set the other way. I absolutely defer to your ability to fix the article; I've seen and admired your work before, and I don't doubt you can pull a Heymann on it, but I knew that I couldn't, so I'm pretty OK with the way it's worked out. :) I checked for copyright as soon as I saw it, by the way; if this was copied off a source on the web somewhere, I couldn't find it. Faithfully, Deltopia 11:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed, I'm sure.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 11:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Massachusetts) has been anonymized. Does this help meet your objections? Student7 12:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it has not . Section 1, paragraph 2, gives the name. Furthermore, he was accused, but not found guilty. He's not alive, so it doesn't technically involve BLP, but it does not meet the standard of evidence required. Item 5 does not give the name, and the person is dead, but again does not meet the standard of evidence. In any event the names are in the references, and the WP article therefore highlights them on the web.

Second, it remains an indiscriminate selection, You cite 6 cases. Were there only 6? Over what period of time? If there were more than 6, on what basis did you select them? I notice 2 involve female teachers. Is that the true proportion? IOf the 4 people living to be sentenced, only one received a prison term. Again, is that the true proportion?

What you ought to do its to write an article about the handling of cases in the state,referring to accurate statistics and without directly mentioning cases. That would be encyclopedic. Possibly the article could deal with public reaction, again, discussed in summary with good academic or legal or evaluative sources, not news accounts of individual cases. that too might well be encyclopedic. But I will never accept an article like this.

I have a bias: I share the common perception that there is every reason to despise such offenses, clerical or lay. I am concerned about the role of all agencies in covering up such crimes. It is possible to have human sympathy for the perpetrators; it is not possible to have sympathy for the involved bureaucracies. I support general articles on the subject, and articles about truly notorious individuals where WP will not add to the harm. I however am very much aware of the influence of WP, and I take BLP very seriously indeed. I take it as only an extension of NPOV: we are not to be used for either positive or negative publicity of anything, however deserving, but rather to provide information about notable public concerns. Individual cases are not usually in that category. I have admiration for what appears to be your campaign, but this is not the place. 13:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi DGG

I noted that you declined the speedy for this article, on the basis that all chemicals are inherently notable. I don't disagree with this point of view. But, I added {{db-blank}}, not {{db-nn}}. That page, as well as Chlorophenol red, are essentially blank apart from an infobox. In other words, it is not an article at all.

Now, it's easy to say {{sofixit}}, but I came across these pages while moving all chemical articles from {{Chembox}} to {{Chembox new}} using User:Chem-awb. There are/were about 2500 articles which were being moved, and each edit is being reviewed manually. I am already fixing the most glaring formatting errors; I don't have the time to stop and research a whole new compound I have never heard before.

Anyway, I believe that WP is not a dictionary of chemical formulae. If someone wishes to write a proper article, even a stub article, it should stay. But otherwise, it should go. What are your comments? --Rifleman 82 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 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 19:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted your concerns as titled above. They are valid - to a point. However, many admins would would have removed any or all of the three you declined. It would indeed be a step backward to lose the speedy. Those of us who have been around for a time have decided to do more unselfish editing and reviewing many "notability" tagged has been mine recently. I am happy with my contributions and feel that I seldom make an edit that does not improve the project. I can't promise that I won't make mistakes but sometimes even a misplaced speedy yields positive results. Cheers! --Stormbay 01:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly all is well between us. I have a thick skin and a solid belief that I'm doing positive things for this project. I responded to your posting in writing because the multiple incorrect speedies needed a reply. Some of your declines are because of philosophical differences between us, no doubt. The schools I now "prod" and find far fewer of them notable than you do. When I feel they are notable, I try to improve them. I am reluctant to use Afd simply because it seems more like a "club" than a legitimate forum. I do give opinions on schools, musical groups and shopping malls at Afd which I feel are held to a lower standard than some other categories. Just decline my speedies with a reason and I have no problem. I think editors such as myself are a large part of the solution and only a miniscule part of the problem. --Stormbay 02:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are ignorant of the subject as you seemed to have indicated on my talk page, don't let that cause you to have any doubts about issuing me a warning of being blocked. What say we leave the warnings to somebody a little more familiar with the subject?

The operation of Afd as you alluded to, is supposed to serve the goal, not be the goal. We may disagree on what the goal is, as do Wikipedia's deletionists and inclusionists. But where pray tell is this discussion supposed to be had? The vague term you used on my talk page, other processes, might just be the disagreements that are Wikipedia. So can the process interfere with itself? Perhaps with your help, it can.

I'd ask you to objectively look at the two articles and reconcile why one is toast and the remaining one still has no sources? Nanabozho 08:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a whole bunch of courses, no specialty yet:

• filosophy/theory of information science
• history of book and library
• statistics in the information sector
• technology for automated document information systems
• structure in document information systems
• retrieval in document information systems
• social aspects of information
• law and information
• management strategy in the information sector
• data processing in information
• present issues in publishing and booktrade

And I'm probably doing an internship transforming 18th/19th century etches into electronic form. For now, I'm pretty new to all of it. Still need to look around and try things out to see in what way I'll be helping the Librarians project though. Also depends on the area of information science that will get my preference in the future. Key to the city 09:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The October 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 grafikbot -- 09:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your rationale for removing the afd tag about this article, but would like to. The article itself is a full wiktionary entry with a usage note. Is your rationale that it should stay because there is discussion and that might lead to an article? Why wouldn't we keep the afd tag and let that emerge from the discussion? If the afd led to some non-dictionary content in the article, that would be OK with me. DCDuring 10:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your talk entry. That ought to do it. Afd has a too short a fuse for an off-the-beaten track article, I suppose. DCDuring 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right--there are many attempts to try to find some intermediate or different way to get people to work intensively on articles. I support them as experiments, if they are not too dogmatic of bureaucratic about it, or want to add yet additional complicated rules or machinery; I can't think of a good way myself, but perhaps someone will be more ingenious. By the way, I removed a Prod not an AfD--See WP:Deletion policy for the difference. DGG (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compersion is a neologism. It appears to have been invented in the subculture of polyamory. They need to a better job of providing hooks to existing words (See meme for a clever coinage) for their own cause. In the same link cruise, I came across the terminology within polyamory page, which illustrates their concern for novel terminology, confirmed by visiting the external links. The article is a glossary. Doesn't the article name alone indicate a problem with WP:NOT a dictionary?

As to Compersion, my WP objection is not to the word, not to the concept, but to the mere dictionariness of the entry. There is a main entry, polyamory, that is a nurturing home for the concept. If compersion were a redirect to that page, it would be fine. Many smaller articles that don't represent potential forks to different articles from a user's point of view ought to be merged or converted to redirects to accelerate the user getting to a meaty article on the concept of interest, in context. I proposed the deletion (sloppily, trying to follow the instructions given in the prod template), because I was thinking in terms of deleting the text content, not so much the page itself. Maybe my goal could be viewed as a merge back into the polyandry article. But only deletion discussions seem to generate debate and significant editorial improvement for less attended-to articles. The source tags especially seem to be ignored. DCDuring 12:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an overlap between dictionaries and encyclopedia. Articles giving merely the definition and etymology of the word, and examples of usage, go in Wiktionary. Articles that discuss the usage--or the etymology--in a substantial way go here--such discussions are not generally allowed in Wiktionary--they consider that information encyclopedic. . Obviously there will be many articles that can be seen from either perspective. The way I look on it is that if the information seems readily capable of development from a subject perspective, then it probably belongs in WP, on the same principle as we have stubs. If it seems unlikely that a subject article could be written, then it doesnt. In this case, there seems to be potential for discussion the concept as well as the word formation. Thanks for the link--I find the invention of these words a very curious phenomenon. On the one hand, the concepts seem to be real--or at least they seem to match what some people perceive in their own feelings and for which there is no standard word. Personally, I dont like this word--I keep spelling it comperson, as a sort of portmanteau between compassion and person.

as for the subject, yes, i did think that might have been part of the reason, and in general I try to support the expansion, not condensation of articles of sexuality. In this case its not really part of polyandry, which is much more limited. The feeling of friendship and love between multiple wives is as much a part of it, for which there is an immense historical record. There's much less literature on the reciprocal, primate males being as they are. There's also of course other possibilities, such as the relationship between a bisexual person's gay and straight lovers. There might be place for a general article, but we'd need a word for it--and here we are back again. DGG (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- could you check out User:Mangojuice/PC and see what you think? I'd like to get your input before going any further with it. Mangojuice^talk 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was all the same AFD....--Marhawkman 21:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

got link?--Marhawkman 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Schön. :)--Marhawkman 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for adding your two cents at my review. I'll definitely work on my AfD posts. Thanks again! GlassCobra (Review) 22:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that article which you put an editing flag. The director general of the WTO is Pascal Lamy and there seems to be no real confusion on the spelling of his surname. Carlossuarez46 04:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my fault for not checking-- thanks for catching my error. But should it instead be a redirect?DGG (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I understand about refusing to speedy. It just seems like pure advertising and 'peacocking' :-( - Thanks anyways, friend! Scarian^Talk 14:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it shows considerable COI, it a recognizable public relations style, and very much needs to be rewritten--and to have the prizes referenced, and some review, and I tagged it accordingly. DGG (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DGG, you're pretty much on top of school AfD's and I was wondering if there was anything in here that was still useful. I was invited to comment on this one and wanted to make sure I had the latest criteria. Thanks! Dreadstar † 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no accepted criteria--I still support considering all High schools notable as a matter of convenience, and so do at least a few other people, but all possible views are expressed. Newcomers to the discussions seem not to be gravitating to any one particular position, so this looks like it will go on for a while. If you think you can support it the way i do, I urge you to do so in hopes that we can move on to other things at AfD than all these borderline cases. DGG (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier that way, wouldn't it? And every high school is notable to the ones who attended, taught or administered it - and their descendants, I daresay...so yeah, I could support that just as we do with cities, towns and villages. What's the real difference? High Schools are one of the last dividing lines between childhood and adulthood, so I think a case can be made for High School auto-notability versus Elementary or Middle...or even Nursery/Kindergardens... How does that play? The only problem I see with High School articles is the number of teen-trollers they seem to attract. I've had several "pet" schools over time where I was constantly reverting the little teen-terrors...;) Dreadstar † 02:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to to resolve the conflict without edit warring Talk:Józef_Piłsudski#Recent__referenced_information_removal#here, but as usual with that user, I am having little luck. Help appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is the question, but if it is over whether he is Lithuanian in origin, that is the sort of argument that goes on forever. If it is whether he was born in a particular village not in WP, someone should add the village at least. I dont know enough to comment otherwise, and what Novikas said seems to make sense. DGG (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I just sent you one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have expressed interest in creating a meta:Wikimedia New York City. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC, the meetup for Saturday November 3, 2007, where it is hoped we can actually get a local chapter started.--Pharos 07:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG.
Here I report you the abusive language of user:Paulcicero.
Here, on the talkpage of Saborsko massacre, he called me as "ignorant fool" [2]. Kubura 09:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

appropriate comments have been left for all. DGG (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for rude language, if any. Maybe the phrase "playing dumb" sounds too rude?
On the other hand, which expression should I use?
I have problems with users that "play dumb".
Which expression should I use for the cases, when the opposing party in discussion behaves like he doesn't hear what I say (or in this case, like he cannot read what I wrote), or, behaves as if he cannot get it, as if I write too brainy things, that a person needs an IQ > 200 to comprehend the message I wrote (does a person need an IQ of 200 to know to type Ctrl+F?). And that's not the case.
To remind you, you wrote on 25 July 2007 (36 days before) on the talkpage of Saborsko massacre "With respect to NPOV, my advice is to further source the material. It is usual for material of this sort to be supported by specific in-line references for the facts of the case, and in particular for the specific use of the phrase "war crime"". I inserted that ICTY reference (UN site), to give coverage for the use of term "war crime".
Paulcicero simply ignored both of us, also showing discussionignorance. Here, on 30 Aug 2007, Paulcicero has removed the reference to ICTY again [3], with comment, "that quote wasn't in the reference". To be correct, the removed reference doesn't have that wording, but in descriptive way, it does. However, he could removed the quotations, but leave the reference, instead of its vandalising removal.
On 15 Sep 2007, Paulcicero removed the line "ethnical cleansing plan" replacing it with "military operation" (???) [4], with the comment "per source", although the indictiment (in parts that weren't discharged) and judgement give description of ethnic cleansing. Paulcicero plays that he cannot get it.
On 21 Sep 2007, Paulcicero removed the quotation from the ICTY's material [5], that referred to ethnic cleansing.
On 26 Sep 2007, Paulcicero removed the line "mostly consisted of Serbs" [6]. Comment was:"the serb part is redundant and eliminated isn´t in the source so stop making stuff up)". Paulcicero finds redundant everything he doesn't like. I've explained the removed line on the talkpage. Commander and executor doesn't have to be from the common base (add multinational country, and confusion is much bigger). Uninformed person might think that whole country's soldiers were engaged there. It may sound as if I'm searching a single hair in a yolk, but may users'll get wrong conclusions.
However, I've tried to talk with him on the talkpage (since 28 Aug 2007), explicitly warning him on his behaviour several times, that he cannot do some things, but he showed blatant ignorance. Beside other things, he said several times:"your warnings mean NOTHING to me"). See section Talk:Saborsko_massacre#Discussion.
Do you know any better expression (and short enough, so that I don't have to write two long sentences, as above?
I must admit, it makes frustrations when you try to explain something, while the other side ignores your arguments, and all arguments given on the same talkpage, months before (!), as well as all previous discussions with other interested parties on the talkpage or "plays that he cannot get it". And suddenly, appears certain user Paulcicero (or, previously, user Wermania, possibly his sockpuppet?).
What makes me more frustrated, is that Paulcicero (vandal, ignorer and disruptor, the remover of UN-ICTY references) gets equal treatment as me, who is supplying the article with references (UN, ICTY). Kubura 08:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paulcicero's bad behaviour again

Hi, DGG.
It seems that user Paulcicero has a "pick" on massacres agains Croat population.
Here, on 6 Oct 2007, [7], Paulcicero removed the UN's ICTY reference (similar case as above, I gave that reference, because it gives ground to use of term "war crime" and link to full text). Paulcicero continues his delete campaign, like he did on Saborsko massacre.
Here, on 13 Oct 2007, he deleted the references to ICTY's indictments and sentencing judgements (UN's site!) [8]. He also deleted the category "war crimes in former Yugoslavia".
Has he read the material? Some of charges from initial indictment say ("From on or about 1 August 1991 until at least 15 February 1992, Milan BABIC, acting individually or in concert with other known and unknown members of a joint criminal enterprise, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation, or execution of persecutions of the Croat and other non-Serb civilian populations in the SAO Krajina/RSK. (that included the village of Široka Kula). The other link, the judgment is mentioned, as confirmation from materials from indictment. I've given the indictment, because it's more descriptive. Kubura 09:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t think that DGG wants us to have a debate on his talk page. Paulcicero 11:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want you to have a debate or dispute at all about each others personalities or skills, nor do I want to advise you on how to more politely make basically unpleasant comments. :) I advise everyone to not refer to other editors in making edits or in discussing on the talk page--anywhere-- but just to discuss the material in the article and the nature of the supporting evidence. As for the citation, I commented at the time that the ICTY citation represented what most people would think the most reliable consensus view. DGG (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you contacted me about the capstone program at nyu deletion. I truly want to make the page better, and I know it read like a press-release- not my intention. Even if not-notable enough for apage of its own, I would like to be able to put a small part about it on the NYU Wagner homepage. I don't understand why that was deleted. It is a unique program, whether the same name is used by other programs or not. It is one of the things that makes the NYU Wagner school (notable in its own right) unique, and so I feel we should be able to at least mention it on wikipedia. I appreciate your willingness to help very much. Again, I want to make a good faith effort to disseminate neutral info on the topic, and am open to advice on how to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyuwagner (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought profit rates will add to user's knowledge about bank's product. any way if that is not to be included then no harms. else about flag icon that is not fare. see the HSBC link. it has loads of flag icons. waiting for reply Zaidi 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC) There has been quite a lot of discussion,and, checking Wikipedia:Use_of_flags_in_articles and its talk page, I see that I overestimated the extent consensus. So you are right, and I was wrong, and as things are they can be used in moderation to provide some clarity to a list. I put them back for you. DGG (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to "Keep" - I can't really close the AfD as there are delete votes, and there was a very bad-tempered exchange on AN/I yesterday about nominators not being able to withdraw "their" AfDs. It's worth pointing out that the article has changed beyond all recognition, and the version that was nominated was an unsourced plot summary. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC) thanks, and the reasons you give for not closing the AfD are reasonable. I think we may differ on the use of plot summaries, but hat's a more gneral concern. I will certainly agree that the article has improved during the time at AfD and say so. It should help.DGG (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David, my article about Masterpapers is being watched on NPOV acceptance for 10 days. Please let me know when you're able to make your decision: whatever it would be I'm really appreciated you for you great help in my article editing as this has definitely improved my article writing skills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterpapers (talk • contribs) 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont exactly know hat you mean--there's no 10 day probation for article NPOV, and I see nothing relevant on the article talk page or on your own. I'm going to review the article in general. But nobody is bound by my determinations.DGG (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't mean there was a determined period, sorry if I was misunderstood. I talked to you because you were my guru on this project. I'll be waiting.(talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.21.132 (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG ... I thought that an admin should take a look at Dotnetguts (talk · contribs) ... I suspect that this Single-purpose account to promote DotNet Guts Yahoo Group may prove to be a problem Real Soon Now ... Happy Editing! —72.75.65.41 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dealt with. But in the future, report to AN/I. You're more certain to get fast action. I have been known to be away from my computer. DGG (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx ... sorry about the unpleasantness at WP:ANI#DGG is not a neutral admin, but I'm sure you'll be vindicated ... your fairness and impartiality (in spite of our differences of opinion on some articles) is the reason why I brought this matter to your attention ... I'll remember WP:AN/I the next time I run into one like this ... BTW, my IP changed last night. —68.239.76.49 14:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, it appears you have deleted the older comments I had posted to your page. Please undelete them or explain why they have been deleted. If you cannot be neutral please give up your admin rights. I am speaking with valid reference. You have been very well aware of the articles on Hindi Programming Language and Hindawi Programming System; in fact you created a disambiguation page for Hindawi where you linked in both of these. Now, today you have deleted the list of keywords and certain other material from the Hindawi Programming System page while you have not done so with the Hindi Programming Language page. The keywords were added to the HPS page yesterday, but they have all through been there on the HPL page. Please explain your actions and the lack of neutrality. Hi pedler 04:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler\[reply]

I am systematically working through my watchlist, and have not gotten everything up to date. I am not using any administrative powers in this editing. However, i will recheck some comparable articles for other languages. You may be right--that is for the article talk page--we can always ask for a third opinion, & I will ask the other admin who has commented. If you have COI in the matter, you should not insert material without discussing it first. I have archived all relevant older comments, not deleted them. DGG (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know in case you haven't seen it, pedler has started a discussion about you at WP:ANI#DGG is not a neutral admin.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 04:55, 10/13/2007

. Followed up there -- even though, given the universal support I seem to have gotten from you and everyone else, it might have been superfluous. DGG (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(note it is at [9] -- DGG

User:Ggarvin has at my suggestion put together a proposed article for Sew Fast Sew Easy. This was protected as a redirect several months ago because Ggarvin and what appear to be his meatpuppets were repeatedly recreating the article as an advertisement. I think the current proposal - located at User:Ggarvin/sew fast sew easy - is a big improvement over the deleted versions and was hoping you would take a look at it.

If you don't see any major issues with the proposal, what is the next step? Can the redirect be unprotected by one of us, or should we ask for a third (or more?) opinion, or does it need to be listed on deletion review? I would greatly appreciate any guidance you have in this. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me and my meatpuppets, as you so implied, know what we need to do to further this process along. Our company has notariety in our industry. --Ggarvin 17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean notability not "notoriety" and if it is your company, the best thing you can do is refrain from editing the article when it is restored. I am unprotecting and restoring it, and will edit it a little. I do not see that it needs deletion review--after speedy delete an article can be recreated. If it goes to afd and gets deleted, that's another matter. DGG (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

The WikiProject welcomes two new members in the past three months:

• Java7837
• Nearly Human

Progress

The WikiProject is now halfway done, numerically, with the 1000 articles identified in December 2006. The first (oldest) 500 articles have been claimed, reviewed, and (when needed, which was almost all cases) improved. Moreover, given the passage of time, many of articles 501 through 1000 have been worked on by other editors (it's ten months since that list was generated). So reviewing the second half of the 1000 articles should be easier.

A slightly different approach

Section 6 (articles 501 through 600 on the list) has been organized differently than the previous five sections. First, blocks are (roughly) five articles each, rather than 10, making it easier for you to claim and finish a block. Second, perhaps more importantly, each block consists of similar pages; if you're interested in fixing disambiguation pages, there are blocks of those; if you're interested in articles (which is what the project originally started out being), there are blocks of those; and there is one block of lists and one of redirects (mostly redirects to articles). So, fewer surprises this time when you claim a block.

In addition, since the project now has 25 active members (though some are likely inactive), having more blocks will make it easier to spread the editing around.

Inactivating your membership

If you received this newsletter on your user talk page and don't want to receive such postings in the future, please move your name, in the participants section of the WikiProject, to the "Inactive" subsection.

About this newsletter

This newsletter is being delivered by Anibot; it was written by John Broughton. Please post any comments about it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Articles, in a section separate from the newsletter itself.
Delivered by Anibot 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the pointer to the deletion review debate. In a similar vein, I was thinking of taking a recent "no consensus/keep" there that I really felt ought to have been deleted. I havn't had time lately to look into the workings of deletion review, so I value any wisdom you have on 1) is there any point in taking a "keep" that was near unanimously !voted for keep, despite none of those addressing lack of WP:RS or demonstrable WP:N, and 2) is there a reasonable span of time between closing and initiating DR that ought not to be exceeded? Best regards, Pete.Hurd 01:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As compared to AfD, Deletion review even more closely resembles a game of chance. so I'll just have to speculate. You're getting guesswork informed by a little experience with the game's customary bias--I wouldn't call it wisdom.

Are you discussing a non consensus keep, or a true keep? If it was nearly unanimous, why was it non-consensus--that might imply some recognition of the problem. In the case of a true Keep, a new AfD within a month is by some but not all people regarded as a dubious tactic; personally I think there ought to be a fixed lower limit of 6 months, though I am would be happy to accept a compromise of three months. In the case of no-Consensus, there can and should be a new attempt to determine consensus, but it makes no real sense to do that until enough time has elapsed to let people think about it. Personally, I think that's about a month at least.

At DR, there is therefore with no consensus closes a feeling that a new afd makes more sense than an overturn--an overturn that would just send it for a new afd anyway. For true keep closes, the deletion review is also usually not straight overturn to delete, but overturn and return to afd. It can serve as a way of determining feelings about the article, but I'd usually suggest on grounds of simplicity going directly to another afd.

Also to the point is the odds of success. If it was nearly unanimous, why? Were there insufficient people in number or strength or intelligence?--that's a good reason for another debate. Has consensus changed, as determined by later AfDs of similar articles? That's a good reason, too. Is the article serious misleading in a significant way--as contrasted to merely trivial? That's another good reason. Or is it perhaps one of those articles (often dealing with computer tech) that are sometimes kept on the basis of what amounts to personal knowledge or interest, in which case the same thing is likely happen again. It can help to ask the person who registered the strongest or soundest keep position if s/he still holds the same opinion--s/he may say s/he's come to think differently.

You are asking someone who is not only more inclined to keep than yourself, but who also strongly opposes most repeated nominations. I appreciate the respect for my objectivity, and if I knew which article it is, I'll give you my opinion both about the chance of success--regardless of what I feel about it, which I will also tell you. DGG (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for interrupting this with my 2¢ worth, but I think that often the problem with a "unanimous consensus" is that the population involved is just Too Small (and I'm not just talking about WP:SPA) and often the most interested and involved parties are either not informed of the AfD, or find out too late to participate.

One reason that I no longer participate in the AfD discussions is that editors will ignore Official Policies (WP:N, WP:COI, etc.) and the closing admin simply "counts the Keeps" to determine "consensus" without noting issues that should have rendered further discussions moot ... I have ended many discussions simply by raising those points, or else persuaded editors to change their expressed opinion from Keep to something else.

I would not be at all surprised if DR is plagued with the same problems, where the chance occurrence of a vocal minority and a careless closing admin can lead to an extended life for an article that just does not belong, as its eventual deletion proves ... Happy Editing! —68.239.76.49 02:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what you say is correct--but the remedy is not to stop participating in AfD yourself, which will only increase the problem. Rather, return to participation in AfDs which get inadequate representation and add your outside unprejudiced view to the discussion--and when you see parties not notified, notify them. It is within your own power to help fix it. (And many of us have repeatedly suggested a minimum quorum and also requirements that all projects and editors be fully and promptly informed. You should express your views on this where it will influence others, at VP and AFD talk. Policy is what we make it.)DGG (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, unfortunately active participation such as you suggest (all of which I have done on more than one occasion, BTW) turns out to exacerbate my bi-polar disorder, more often than not with unfortunate consequences. :-( —68.239.76.49 04:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could tell you had some experience :). Many of us here seem to have tendencies towards such problems. I don't want to offer advice you're no doubt familiar with, but I find it possible to make one single comment, hope it does some good, and move on. What I've sometimes done is looked at WP:AFD for those discussions which remain unclosed for long periods. A sensible comment at the end can clarify things. DGG (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well you know DGG, your inclination to !vote "keep" is remarkably weak compared to your level-headedness. Here's the AfD in question. I'd be nominating quite a few of the related articles if I thought they wouldn't have pretty much the same outcome as this at AfD. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 03:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that there was No Consensus on that one, OTOH, can you say, "WP:RS?" I mean, did anyone even look at the URLs used as references for the citations? —68.239.76.49 04:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'zactly, "who needs sources when you have twenty sided dice"... Cheers, Pete.Hurd 06:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie - DGG please have a look at the following [10]. I feel the AfD is not appropriate. The organisation is very notable in its own right, often covered in local language media. The problem not many refernces in English or online refernces. Help me - no matter how bad I consider you are! :) Hi pedler 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler[reply]

By the way, I don't mind the page on Anamika Press being redirected to Indicybers because they are mainly notable for their contributions to Indic ICT. These guys operate on a show-string budget and cannot meet up the mega-million ad campaigns of the western publishers like Hindawi Publishing Corporation but does that make them non-notable. I request you to visit India someday and take a stock of the ground reality. Today most computing forums in India, including Govt. wings recognise them. Hi pedler 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler[reply]

The Indicybers deletion discussion is here [11]. The refernces would mainly coincide with the refernces on Hindawi Programming System Hi pedler 06:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler[reply]

sure I'll help with the best advice I can. What would help defend Anamika is whether they are known for any other publications. it is very hard to defend a publisher who has published mainly one particular set of standards or specifications. There ought to be no bias against non-English sources--just provide translations. the problem with web-only sources is that it is very hard to show independence and reliability. I & others have argued many times that we should be flexible about this--maybe there will eventually be enough supporters--for many notable topics increasingly such will be the only good sources. As a practical matter, try to incorporate some materal from Indicybers into the Anamika article. It is permissible & encouraged to improve an article during AfD. Then try to find some media reviews of their work--any language any country, but truly independent and not derived from PR. then the article will hold. I will look at the discussion tomorrow and see what you have found by then and give an opinion. A good general ruler is to aim at fewer but stronger articles. DGG (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, adding a talk-page comment, you seem to have deleted two others (mine included). Any idea what happened? Alai —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks like I carelessly didnt see down to the end of the page. Anyway, I fixed it. Thanks for letting me know., time to go to bed, it seems. DGG (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. I was just extra-confused by it affecting more than one other comment... Alai 08:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it's up to subjective interpretation I'm afraid I disagree with your conclusions.

Frank Ritter is an associate professor, it's his job to publish things, as such I don't feel that "publishing widely" is actually an assertion. To me an assertion is something that makes him stand out from the rest. There was nothing in the article that did.

Scandinavion Bunkering. This company is small fry, the 40m Kroner may look like it's a huge turnover... until you convert it to dollars. Likewise being the 72 largest company in a country the size of Sweden is not in itself notable.

Email Limited. Again I used the bar of all international companies, so what makes this one stand out?

I'm not writing this to argue, or even as an attempt to change your mind. I'm describing my thought processes to demonstrate that I don't just hand out CSDs willy-nilly as your message seems to assert. I do think about what I'm doing and my choices are based on logical reasoning and interpretation. I compare like with like rather than "apples and oranges". ---- WebHamster 15:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2007 Paris-Tours or Paris-Tours 2007 was deleted on October 14, 2007. The same day the race occurred. Paris-Tours is part of the 2007 UCI ProTour which contains a link to all UCI ProTour events. Respectfully request that 2007 Paris-Tours can be re-established with meaningful content as it relates to professional road bicycle racing. I suspect the article when deleted only contained the shell of results without the actual results. Now that the race is completed, actual results and UCI ProTour points and how Paris-Tours affects the ProTour standings can be described. (djharrity) Djharrity 15:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you determine how many libraries a book is held in? That would be useful knowledge to have. Corvus cornix 20:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I normally use OCLC WorldCat, but it has some limitations--in fact, more limitations than I realized. --I have revised my comment. As far as I can tell, It is approximately complete for US academic libraries, has the great majority of US public libraries, has the larger Canadian and UK academic libraries, & some really major ones in other countries. Doesn't have most industrial and smaller specialized libraries even in the US. Doesn't have public libraries outside the US, except a few in Australia. DGG (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is OLCL WorldCat available online? Corvus cornix 18:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Now I remember glancing at your background; you appreciate the importance of those citation indices. Anyway, you forgot to sign your comment on the Mark R. Graczynski. You can be library-science "advisor" to my "ministry" anytime. HG | Talk 00:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (signed, and thanks)--DGG.[reply]

Hi ... I've been going through old IP accounts and tagging legacy sandboxes for deletion with {{db-userreq}}, but Some Other Editor zapped User:72.75.72.174/Harley-Quinn.com Argument before I could make an archive copy of it ... I requested a restore from the admin, but there has been no reply ... would you please restore it, as well as deleting to ones tagged in my recent Contributions? Thnx! —68.239.76.49 13:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC) As or the first, see: User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/restores. for the others, i cannot tell just which ones you want. DGG (talk) 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*ring ring* -- Cherubino 14:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Cherubino 20:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DGG: Just for my edification, could you point out the assertion of notability contained in the Search LOVE in Google article. Thanks. --Evb-wiki 22:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might perhaps have worded it better as the good faith willingness of the ed. to improve the article. He's got 5 days. Without the hangon, I probably would have deleted. DGG (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I can live with that. I thought I was missing something. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 00:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a trend to cite an editor's text as a footnote, without an external reference (see Operation Ostra Brama), and a similar trend towards inserting interpretative text as part of a citation (see the October 6th version of Karolina_Proniewska [12]). Could you comment on this practice? I can't find a discussion in WP. Could lead to endless iterations (footnotes to footnotes). Novickas 14:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the first article, I assume you are referring to "Reference 1" , which is actually an explanatory footnote. There is provision for such footnotes as distinct from references in WP:CITE, section 3.4.2.2 Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" -- and a small number of WP articles use this technique extensively. Ideally they should be a separate section, but that is a little tricky. But otherwise, just what is the problem there? That the footnote itself needs a citation? I see from that page that citations cannot be nested, using some of the automatic techniques, but would need to be specified manually as best they could. I'm a hardened academic, and I am quite accustomed to the very complicated footnote apparatus often used in history and the humanities, but I agree that for WP something relatively simple and straightforward is preferable.

For the second article, it would seem to me that the footnote "It is to be noted that in some modern Lithuanian works her name is Lithuanized as Pranauskaite is an apparently sensible comment-- although i gather from the talk page this imay or may not be correct. Apparently this is fundamentally a content dispute. If it's controverted, why not just say so? A great deal of unproductive debate has been spent on thousands of articles on just how to give such information in the lede paragraph or in infoboxes --I support giving the commonly held version, of stating the alternatives quickly, and discussing more fully later in the article. . As for the technical way to present the information, I think there is provision for doing things this way. There has been a good deal of unresolved discussion of how to present multiple alternative names without confusing the user. There is something to be said for using footnotes for this purpose, rather than trying to get it all in the text.

In general, I think some explanatory text is a good idea to illuminate the nature of the reference. As: (EB 1911; a thorough account, but out of date) -- and that this technique can in fact solve some of the questions raised about using Nazi and Soviet era references. Obviously one can still quarrel about using them, but it should be easier to reach a compromise to use them with a note so those who might not realise possible inaccuracy can be alerted. . DGG (talk) 03:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have mistaken my motivation here. Per her ethnicity, the content dispute, I think the article should do the talking.

The question related to interpretative text in notes; other editors expressed doubts about this, and it is discussed extensively at Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#Separate_Notes_and_Citation_sections, Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_layout#Notes_should_go_at_the_very_end, and Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#Multiple_endnotes. The notes used as examples in WP Cite are not very helpful in this regard - they either contain quotes or directions to WP policy pages.

Notes lend a pleasantly academic tone to WP. But as far as using them as shortcuts, as in, say, "It should be noted that Foo historiography is generally considered FUBAR," I don't think it's going to wash. The Foos will rise up in protest, and justly so, IMO. Better to adjust the article as needed.

Thanks for replying, Novickas 15:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at my CSD for Centre for Rupert's Land Studies. I appreciate your decision to simply have it rewritten. However, when I went to do some research about the Center, I discovered this. It appears the majority of our article is lifted straight from this page, so I've re-tagged it as a copyvio. I was disappointed, too. Here I was hoping to help rebuild the article, or at least clean it up, but it's just a copy & paste job with a few lines reworded here & there. - Kesh 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have suggested looking for this. sometimes when its a really obviously notable organization & they do a copyvio I stubbify instead of delete, but these guys are not notable enough to warrant the effort on a rescue--cant save them all. DGG (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy ... I'd appreciate it if you would keep an eye on John Fitzgerald Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... I tagged it's talk page with

{{subst:Warn-article|Cmdrtacyo|Biographies|header=1}} —~~~~

and put a {{warn-editor}} on the author's talk page, and then I Moved On ... maybe I'll come back in a week and stick a PROD on it ... this is an example of applying the Warn-bio protocol, just doing the first two steps and waiting before tagging ... I might even try putting some lipstick on this pig ... let's see how it plays out. :-)

Happy Editing! —68.239.76.49 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest trying it on a subject where there was some reasonable chance that notability could in fact be demonstrated. I may of course be wrong, but I think its obvious that no amount of work could make something out of this. The list of "notable connections" is in my experience diagnostic. In deference to your experiment I will refrain from speedy A11, which comes the closest. DGG (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is the fourth incarnation, I figured it would be good for going through all of the steps just to see what kinds of actions are elicited ... might even lead to a WP:SOCK or WP:COI investigation.  :-) —68.239.76.49 00:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. ... the {{Notability}} tag has already been removed without comment by an anon WP:SPA. —68.239.76.49 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes,I see this all--and i think that it amounts to a good demo of when elaborate process is notnecessary. Nor is an investigation for COI, which is about has obvious as its every going to be. Rather, just removing the nonsense and if necessary blocking accounts. But I have become convinced that in general prompt removal of the pseudo-articles is the best step, and will discourage most jokers. The procedures you propose are intended for articles that can and should be rescued. Let's pick a better test case.DGG (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again ... Some Other Editor has stuck a WP:CSD#G11 -Blatant advertising on it ... what's your call re: this obvious Vanispamcruftisement? —72.75.79.128 02:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when I said "A11" above, I meant G11,--I think it fits well enough. Really, the point of using templates to encourage people to improve articles, requires articles that can be improved. One can go through the charade for articles like this, & pretend they are written in GF about possibly N people--but it really is a waste of effort when there are so many articles that do need help and might benefit from them. DGG (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's gone already, but unless it's salted, I fear it will just return again in a few days ... maybe leaving the Talk page around will be sufficient to keep it from coming back? —72.75.79.128 14:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to your comment on Talk:South African Patriot. Thanks, Chelsea Tory 19:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Commented there. DGG[reply]

At the moment some of the opinions I've given on three or four separate items are being questioned, either on this talk page or by email. If anyone asks on WP for my opinion, and I have a chance to look, I will give my opinion-- limited to what I think I can reasonably say--generally on the technical aspects of sourcing, not who is right or wrong, and I will give or refer to it on the talk page of the article in question so anyone interested can see it (which of course is where further discussion should be carried out). It may not be just what you had in mind. It may be right, or wrong--I do not issue rulings--only the community can do that. If what you really want is confirmation of your own views, ask someone else. If you ask by email, anything you say is confidential, but if my attention is called to a situation I think must in fairness be addressed on-Wiki I will do so, but not using your ID or other private matter. DGG (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was told 64.128.191.101 and 83.149.73.119 are Open proxies by User:Deskana after a checkuser. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC) -- -- But why did you happen to investigate that particular address? You were presumably looking for socks? Maybe i can help track that down.DGG (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG - I just sent you an email. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Please take a look at Hindi Programming Language and the following links which have more or less the same text outside of Wikipedia - http://technofriends.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/hindi-programming-language/ [13] (almost an exact copy-paste job) http://technofriends.wordpress.com/category/it/ [14] The Uses section onm this article comes from http://sktn.spaces.live.com/ [15]Check out Shamit's posting here [16], though this is slightly differently worded. Another similar link [17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi pedler (talk • contribs) 06:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Missed the sign on the last message 203.199.173.2 09:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler[reply]

DGG - You have been long involved on all this. Expect an honourable response from you. Hi pedler 04:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler[reply]

yes, but not tonight. DGG (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, S. Vititskiy is pen name of Boris Strugatsky, while Yaroslavtsev is pen name of Arkady Strugatsky with little influence of Boris. The reason for pen names is, that most of their books were co-authored by them; so "Arkady and Boris Strugatsky" is a kind of a "brand"/style/fame. When Arkady Strugatsky tried to work separately, he invented a pen name, for it not to be mixed with their common activity. After Arkady's death in 1991, Boris started to use pen-name S. Vititskiy, which shows there's no more writer named "Arkady and Boris Strugatsky".

I'll try to have a look and expand those articles/ find info on prizes. ellol 08:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list of publications from this article last week, as it was so long it was dominating the article - by all means restore it if you think it would help. In light of User:JJJ999's history, expect an edit war if you do. — iridescent 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks--I had not checked the history. I will restore selectively. Frankly, your edit destroyed the evidence for notability. But what do you think of that note about deliberate error? JJJ and I well know each other, and neither of us seem to shy from disagreement. Another will just add to the list. DGG (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I *think* the "deliberate error" was that the article said he coached the debate team, when according to his resume he was actually the assistant coach. However, I deliberately didn't touch it, as it may be that the resume was wrong and he was the coach - I also think there's a possibility that "there is an error on this page" was itself the error. There was a discussion here about it last week.

I agree I destroyed the evidence - if I'd known it would go straight to AfD, I'd have left it up. I removed it because it seemed insanely long, and not really necessary unless the article were to be expanded ("He has written x books & y papers" would seem all that's necessary). If it's any use, his official resume's here; as I say on the AFD & the original AN discussion, I don't think there's any doubt that he's a leader in his field; the only question seems to be if the field is so specialised that being a leader in it isn't automatically notable. (The academic variant of the "lead singer in a non-notable band" argument.) I'm witholding comment on it as I don't feel competent to judge - while I do have a philosophy degree from way-back-when, it's a field I've not stayed in touch with at all. — iridescent 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I've done is restored just books and the peer reviewed journal articles. For academics I normally remove conference proceedings, lectures, book reviews and what not from publication lists in article. I always leave books, as for any author. Often I restrict the list to the recent or most cited articles, but part of the notability here seems to be the high productivity from an Associate Professor--not all such are notable, by my standards at least. The current version omits the debate team altogether--I'm very glad you spotted it, as I had not yet done the work of trying to match things up. WP, as we know, is actually quite good at catching errors because of the careful editing by so many people such as yourself. The possible self referential nature did occur to me, especially as he seems to specialize in debate and argumentation: a pretty dilemma--if we leave the notice up, we are making an error, if we take it down, we are removing criticism. But the removal of the sentence jumps over the problem. DGG (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [18], I don't think that's really a valid rationale to decline a speedy. The article states that the party was created on October 17, 2007 (the day of the article's creation), and there is no assertion of notability. I think it's a safe WP:CSD#A7. Best, Nishkid64 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and it seems to have been deleted. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The community decides. That's what AfD is for. As I read the AfD, it was deleted as nonsense. Looking at it again, though I continue to think it was not speediable as A7, I might reasonably have changed the speedy reason to nonsense and deleted it myself accordingly. Criticism accepted, I should have looked harder to find a way to get rid of it. Anyway, it can now be G4'd and salted if it appears again. DGG (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence for your extraordinary contributions to the AfD process; for taking on the large task of editing two muddled articles that gave me eyestrain just looking at them, and helping to make Wikipedia more inclusive by saving those articles when it would have been very easy to delete them. Great work, and thanks. Accounting4Taste 06:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for teaching me the lesson that eyestrain is never a reason to avoid rolling up my editorial sleeves and getting down to it, in a good cause. Accounting4Taste 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Maritime Museum has a controversy regarding the relevance of discussing the propriety of exhibits taken from Germany after WWII. Since you are interested in relevance, I thought this might find this interesting. --Kevin Murray 17:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#UCfD

There's absolutely no need to apologise, I assure you. It's simply that I'm almost certain that I've never posted to your talk page regarding UCFD (well, except now). Were you referring to someone else, perhaps? I initially assumed that it was in reference to me, but upon rereading your comment, I see that it's ambiguous on that point.

As for a means of increasing participation, I can't think of anything at the moment. UCFD is advertised about as much as any other deletion process. Participation there seems, for the most part, to fluctuate with the quantity of nominations: when many categories are nominated at the same time, raw participation increases. The quantity of nominations itself is quite variable: some days see a few dozen new nominations and other times numerous days pass with only a handful.

I don't think it's entirely feasible to combine most of the XfDs. The deletion/inclusion standards for categories, templates, project pages, and redirects are vastly different. If there is any move to consolidate them, I think it should be carried out in small steps, in order to allow the full consequences to be revealed.

To me, the most obvious target for consolidation is WP:STFD; since it deals both with templates and categories, its function could be split and allocated to WP:TFD and WP:CFD, respectively. I've also considered proposing combining WP:UCFD and WP:CFD (indeed, that's why I initially became active at UCFD in June), but I don't think that's viable at this point in time. Moreover, the standards for user categories are substantially different from those for regular categories. A 'year of birth' category for people would be kept at CFD but a similar user category was deleted at UCFD; an 'interest' or 'language' category for biographies would be deleted at CFD but those for users were kept at UCFD. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally figured out who made the comment I referred, and it was certainly not you! I'll fix my implication. As for UCFDs, I notify the people individually with a bot. If none of them mind, we're done with it. I doubt many people watchlist their user categories (but how should I know really, since I don't use them myself). another way to notify would be through relevant project pages, in instances where it applies. Personally, I think very highly of WP Projects as a way for effective work in such a large overall setting as WP, , and we should continue to develop their usefulness. the real problem with UCFD is that some people dont want them except for strictly encyclopedia-related issues, and I think that is fundamentally wrong in principle, and we need some kind of a referendum. I really have doubts about anything that might suggest paternalism or telling other people how to organise themselves, unless there is actual abuse. That happens, of course, and when it does it should be dealt with. DGG (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this system and trying to make an entry to meet your needs. I am not sure why the awards N.M.Kelby has been given...Outstanding Southern Artist, etc...are not meeting your requirements. I have added reviews.

I have noticed that other writers, such as Susan O'Neill only have one book and no awards listed but are allowed to remain.

I am very confused.

the prizes might be important; now find published sources, print or web, that give information about their being awarded and add them as references. Translation show importance. Add them also: give a list, including the ISBNs. give actual references to the reviews. find them in google, or the publisher should have the actual references, or a librarian can help. Once you add them, I'll check them for formatting. If you do that, I think the article will probably stand. DGG (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following this thread at ANI, and I was reading one of the AfDs and saw one of your comments and thought you would want to know about the thread. Carcharoth 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nom. I'll appeal if this is deleted. Bearian 15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can't see that it will be, based on current status. I commented so I cant close. But take a look at his other nominations. Does this remind you of anyone? DGG (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor format edits to the above article. Also, DGG, I added references to From Dusk 'til Dawn if you would like to check it out now. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRC, Published 3rd party sources, please. Not a blog, not the animal liberation sites. DGG (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, um...you recently put a word of warning on my page about some speedy deletion tags I put up around a month ago now. Can I please just say that this was in my archive. So before warning me about my mistake that was around one month ago now, I clearly posted that everything before October 12 (i think) was in my archive. Please take that into consideration next time before putting up the something that someone already had!

Because of that, I will be removing your comment from my page. If you have any other concerns, please feel free to drop in a message! Aflumpire 08:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you now understand. I see that you have not marked any geographic features or places for deletion since Oct. 19. I was yesterday addressing an large number of attempted deletions of various places in India, and wished to make sure everyone involved knew. DGG 12:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

It seems that a few 'supercentenarians' have turned out to be Wikipedia hoaxes...cases invented on Wikipedia:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/8930

Greetings,

A few months ago I found Gracia Medinaceli-Borbón in Wikipedia's list of centenarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_centenarians

The claim is as follows: Gracia Medinaceli-Borbón (1788-1901), duchess of Dúrcal, wife of José Ramón Rodil y Campillo

When searching for her in Google, all the sources are from Wikipedia and the information available is: - Wife of José Ramón Rodil y Campillo - Mother of Rita Rodil Medinaceli - Grandmother of Fernando Aguirre Rodil (Spanish actor) - Duchess of Dúrcal

After conducting some research outside Wikipedia, this looks to me as an invented case. Let me explain my findings:

a) JOSÉ RAMÓN RODIL He was a well known Spanish statesman and is amazing that even Wikipedia's page in English does not mention he was married with Gracia Medinaceli. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Ram%C3%B3n_Rodil_y_Campillo

I found a more reliable source including detailed info of his baptismal and death records. The article does not mention his wife or daughter, however it says that his heir was Francisco Alejo Gómez Herrazo, his butler.

Another well informed source simply says he was single.

b) DUCHESS OF DÚRCAL The "Ducado de Dúrcal" was created in 1885 and there was only two dukes and two duchesses to date. Gracia is not part of the genealogy tree, according to this page http://www.adurcal.com/enlaces/cultura/zona/Historia/duque/index.htm

c) RITA RODIL MEDINACELI I have serious doubts of the existence of Rita Rodil (she only appears in Wikipedia, as her mother). Even accepting her, there is a serious date mismatch as Gracia was supposedly born to be 94 years before her maternal grandson (Fernando Aguirre was born in 1882).

Conclusion, I don't consider this to be a false or exaggerated case, but an invented case.

Regards, Miguel

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/8934

Christina of Valois....French supercentenarian hoax on Wikipedia Message List

Reply | Forward | Delete Message #8934 of 8934 < Prev | Next >

Greetings,

Here is another Wikipedia supercentenarian hoax:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was Delete--JForget 23:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christina of Valois Christina of Valois (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) Who is this 16th-century royal supercentenarian whom all sources ignore, except Wikipedia, which has harboured the page for more than three years now? Ghirla-òð¸ï- 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:HOAX. Delete. --Ghirla-òð¸ï- 22:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Delete Hoax. There are no sources to indicate Charles VII had a daughter named Christina.--Sethacus 23:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Delete as above, unless someone shows me some evidence of her existance. Worth noting that no articles link to the page. J Milburn 23:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC) Speedy Delete, HOAX. First off Charles VII died in 1461 and Christina was born in 1543. Second Charles VII was married to Marie d'Anjou. Plus as a geneologist I can assure you that I have looked in all my books on French royalty and this Christina of Valois did not exist. Callelinea 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Off with her head!; unmitigated hoaxitude. Besides, she would have been called Christine if she existed, which she didn't. — Coren (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Comment And that's another thing that bugged me, the non-French names. I mean, "Jaquelina"? (who also doesn't exist, BTW)--Sethacus 19:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Delete, shame on us for not getting it until now. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Note that in both of these hoaxes, the age claimed merged a 'supercentenarian' age with a royal or noble family tree. I didn't catch this immediately, in part because family trees often had dates off by 20 years or more: for example, St. Patrick:

Born unknown, Died March 17, AD 461 or AD 493

It seems that the hoaxer's intent was to gain 'traction' based on the idea that 'if they are white, European, upper-class, nobles, records must exist and this must be a verified case.' In addition, imagine the 'fun' of making someone born in 1788 survived to 1901 (instead of dying in 1899, as happened with Boomgaard). The hoaxers misjudged on several accounts:

1. Even among European data, having a claim to '113' would be extremely suspicious prior to the 20th century. 2. No, being white, European, and middle-class does not gain one automatic induction. 3. We understand that Wikipedia is not an 'original source.'

I do note, however, I was 'fooled' by one editor: Mr. Toussaint, who added a false male centenarian to the French Wikipedia page. But in that case, he was smart enough to make the age and name believable and in a time and place that tracked such records...something these amateurish hoaxers failed to understand.

Regards Moderator

If you can figure out who is doing this and if there are any more that need to be deleted, please let me know. I think that SOME users on Wikipedia don't understand the difference between a 'claim' and a 'hoax'. A CLAIM means the age claimed was reported by a third-party source (such as a newspaper) and the purpose was or often is to advance a person's age. A hoax, on the other hand, is done with the ends of fooling authorities. Both may be wrong but whereas Wikipedia's policy is 'no original research' and 'verifiability', it is simply unacceptable to make up hoaxes.Ryoung122 10:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised to see hoaxes on this particular subject--such have long anteceded Wikipedia. I removed it from the page with an explanation and a link here--but why did you send this to me instead of just making the edit yourself? DGG (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I guess I goofed, I shouldn't have listed him as "Dr. Rafal ...". Mindraker 11:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for your comment regarding the new pages. I guess it is really my first time doing speedies. I just installed TW today and it was kind of intimidating when the user box on the left of the screen automatically shows only 10 of the most recent articles. But one thing to definitely note, the article had much much less sources to back itself up when I read it.

When I was editing this morning, I was looking for main "selling" keywords, first-person wording, the words "we provide"/"our services", and others. Although I cannot tell you exactly which words I caught the article, the photographer's article definitely did not have that many sources. I took a look at the history as well your comments and I agree that the "PR-oriented" wordings and it seems like something that would have caught my attention and assumed that was blatant advertisement or something.

I appreciate others who send me comments about how to wikify or improve the ways I contribute. Thanks! :-)

Have a great day! Jameson L. Tai 17:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not trying to advertise here. planning on recreating with more citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnewf (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your advice, DGG. will do. Gnewf 22:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, thankyou for reviewing AfD article on Anthony Chidiac and your positivity on my first go at a fresh article (a STUB). I hope to bump into you again sometime, I'm away writing more articles and cleaning up old ones too, I feel hooked for the moment, will see where the AfD Debate goes on subject but the talk has gone to the sewer sadly. Anyway, just a nice thought out to you for your time in seeing the article for what it was. T--T3Smile 01:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see your comments. I agree that Otto4711 let his temper get the better of him, but he did not ask for exclusive coverage ... just detailed and direct, which is exactly what WP:N calls for. He was accused of asking for exclusive coverage, but he never actually did so. The sources for the article are all passing mentions, an issue which the keep voters gloss over.Kww 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you are quite correct--I got lost in the exchanges. I corrected my statement. DGG (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I've scrabbled around Google and found a bit more info, but as I'm not a member - or even on the same side of the big pond - I can't do much more. I'd be sorry to see the article deleted as a result of my having queried the removal of a redlink to a different state LA from the TLA disambiguation page. (I cited existence of MLA page as a reason not to delete redlink for Texas LA, and the other editor promptly AFD'd this one). PamD 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reason why an article cannot be re-created if material is found. But I'm a little skeptical it will be--I do not think the public activities of most US state library associations are notable in an encyclopedic way. But UK Librarianship is very weakly covered in WP--why don't you try some of that.DGG (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power/archive1. You commented back when this article was up for deletion discussion, and I don't think you monitor the WikiProjects I posted this notice to. Your suggestions on any tips to get this article eventually to WP:FA, or if you think it is ready for WP:FAC or WP:GAC, would be most appreciated at the Peer Review. Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done as requested. DGG (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being the first to comment! Though my response at the Peer Review does seem like I don't agree with everything you suggested, that is okay, I think Peer Reviews can be a bit of give and take somewhat. Certainly others I have looked over were. But I do take some of your suggestions to heart, and I thank you for taking the time to comment. I will try to find more specific accusations from the Church of Scientology like you asked for, and focus on a future potential WP:GAC instead of considering going for WP:FAC. Thanks again, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You've expressed an interest in the upcoming New York City Meetup for Saturday, November 3. I'd like to update you on an important change of schedule.

• It's been agreed that we should have a 2-hour formal meeting period to start organizing meta:Wikimedia New York City, and this will be held at the Pacific Library (note this is different from the Brooklyn Central Library, which was discussed earlier) from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM.

This will be in addition to the previously scheduled roving activities at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (this activity has also been cut short a bit) and at the Brooklyn Museum. For full details, see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Ask any questions at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC. Thank you.--Pharos 21:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your opinions of the three Roman Catholic Bishops up for AfD. Callelinea 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I re-read the article, and didn't realize it was an official site. The wording made it sound like it was an unofficial one. But anyway, I found a source for notability (though it's not much) and added it in, though to be honest, there's little else about it online if you do a search for it (and rule out sites with harvard.edu in it). Kwsn (Ni!) 16:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you found something--now it can probably survive Afd. DGG (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure more sources will come out eventually, the site is pretty new. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

other schools may have similar. I think Berkeley does--I will take a look for it. DGG (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notification regarding copyright infringement. I have subsequently made changes to another article which I have created. Pakenham4 04:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

(You listed the article for Speedy in August.) --B. Wolterding 15:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! Sorry, if I've been causing trouble. I'm a new editor, and I'm still making mistakes. I'll review the speedy conditions =)Lex Kitten 14:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment is sensible. But I have some caveats about it. I kind of replied in it two comments of my own, I'd be interested in your opinion, wheter you write it there or here.--victor falk 20:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DGG,

I think you need to reconsider your vote on the BCE categories for deletion. The proposal was to maintain the integrity of the MOS, not to confirm with other categories. On July 17th, 2007 one user came in and created a bunch of new categories using the BCE date---these categories already existed under their BC variation. Thus, the user violated the MOS by creating a BCE category to replace BC categories. See my response [on the CFD] On another note, you might want to consider archiving your page---it's over 255MB---that is HUGE.Balloonman 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commented there, and the end of the month is coming. DGG (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look again at Sylvin Rubinstein? Much, of not most, of it is directly from the webpage [19]. For example, the "Nazi Occupation" section - both of those sentences are directly lifted from the news article. In the "Resistance" section, the paragraphs/sentences that start "It turned out..." and "Werner arranged..." are directly lifted, and that's most of the section that isn't direct quotes from Rubinstein. And before Apeloverage's edit it was even worse. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in fact quite unhappy with this article, and said so on the article talk page. I have now looked further, and commented in some detail there based upon both the English and the German material. The author of the article is a well-establish and reliable editor who has worked on a number of different topics, primarily films. Had it been a newcomer, i would probably have deleted the article immediately. Perhaps he can fix it, based on your & my information. If not, i will stubbify it. DGG (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl. Thanks for your attention and participation :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made a Wiki Hello badge in case anyone's interested in using it for the Meetup. It's on the Meetup page. Nightscream 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen my response at Talk:Neoplatonism and Gnosticism? forgot timestamp: Dan 04:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you just missed additional comments. It seems to me that two issues here wouldn't require you to know the first thing about Neoplatonism. Dan 18:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied there. on the narrow questions only. DGG (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been recent editions to the Jimmy Kessler article. What are your thoughts concerning these recent edits and the article's present notability. Thanks. Bhaktivinode 04:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This honorary Doctorate for Rabbi Kessler has been documented on the Hebrew Union College website. [20] Thanks. Bhaktivinode 04:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

get this a/ into the article, and b/mentioned in the AfD. But there really needs to be 3rd party discussion of it--there should have been some newspaper articles of the period. An appropriate library should be able to help. DGG (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added two articles from The Galveston County Daily News on Jimmy Kessler, I hope these with the Hebrew Union College reference can establish notability. Thanks. Bhaktivinode 05:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I notice you just posted a couple comments on the Alkivar adminship case. You might want to double check whether this one might be out of place. I think the ArbCom clerks asked us not to thread any discussions on the evidence page, and not to argue or comment on each other's evidence there. Perhaps it would be more appropriate on the talk part of that page or in the workshop. Obviously I have no authority and I'm not experienced in ArbCom cases, but just a thought. Take care, Wikidemo 04:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved as suggested. I'm new to this sort of thing, which I normally try to avoid--I tend to consider formal actions as potential disasters all round, necessary only in extreme situations; this unfortunatley may be one where it is needed. DGG (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I'm interested in your note that you would have used your real name "from the beginning if I had understood WP better". Wondering whether to do likewise. Have you written something to explain this anywhere, please? RSVP here/my page or email me. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied by email. Basically, transparency is best. DGG (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count Charles von X born in Y, Canada in July 19xx.

Education

University of Ottawa Dalhousie University

Work

(random, non-notable)

Other

Speaks English, has some notable ancestors, but is not notable himself.

Is that a notable article? Honest question. I propose for speedy only because it's obvious that they are not notable and on the off-chance someone goes "hang-on", it can be discussed then. Charles 03:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy isnt to find out if its notable, only if there is no claim at all for notability. If you think it wont be defended, use PROD, works just as well. If it needs discussion, its not a speedy--the length of the arguments given show it--why dont you simply merge into an article on the family, or the most notable grandparent? That sort of merge is the simplest way to get them cleared up.DGG (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is a preemptive measure for those who may come across it and think they should hang-on for whatever reason. Sensible individuals obviously would not. For all it's worth, it was basically a facsimile used for all articles nominated, not something tailored for each article and therefore rendering them for discussion. Charles 03:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk pages for things like that. There are basically 3 choices for how to proceed on them: 1/ PROD--if nobody objects, they are gone in 5 days. 2/AFD, you could realistically do a group of several of them, they will probably be rather quickly deleted, but it is a little more of a nuisance. 3/ Merge into an article for the family, of as descendants of whomever it is that does deserve an article. Any good faith claim to notability prevents a speedy, no matter how thoroughly insufficient it is. If we had no other way to delete, them, then yes, we'd use it. But we have 3 suitable ways. Personally, Id suggest a merge as over time the most satisfactory in avoiding the need for further arguments. But then, i always like compromise. Just put the merge tag on, explain, wait 5 days, if nobody objects, go ahead and merge. DGG (talk) 03:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of the info really is already in the relevant pages. If the AfDs don't go through, I will ask for merger. Look through my contributions, there are even less notable nominations, those of very remote descendants who can't even be mentioned in a house article. Charles 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you see merger is OK, so why not just do it and save all the overhead at time for everyone at AFD. Just be BOLD about it--I'll be glad to support you if anyone questions it. Merging is an editing question, and therefore comparatively simple. Let me know tomorrow if there's any help needed doing it. DGG (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I cancel the afd then? How would I do that? Charles 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The afds now running will probably go towards deletion fairly quickly, for not even I could really they that a separate article for each of them is appropriate. . I suggest saying something like, as the nom., instead of deleting iI would like to merge the information into the article for their (grandparent, prince XY of Z., or whatever--or, if it is already there, change the article to a redirect) the admin will probably close accordingly. DGG (talk) 04:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about a case like Charles Edward Ambler, where he is not notable but the information about his children (also not notable) does not belong in their grandmother's article? Charles 04:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the second child and elder son of John Kenneth Ambler and his wife Princess Margaretha of Sweden, sister of King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden." so put him in with princess Margaretha. Do you have access to Oxford dictionary of National Biogaphy? see the way they handle the minor people. Alternatively, organize as an article on the entire family, with breakout articles for the really notable people like the Kings and so on. DGG (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected a number of the articles to articles of their parents, etc. Take a peek in my contributions. However, there are completely and wholly non-notable people like Thomas Rindom, Philip Rindom and Paulina Grawe, all between five and nineteen years old, all articles otherwise the same and containing information that would not make thousands of other people notable. These people, really, should be deleted. Even a merger for them would be ridiculous. They appear absolutely nowhere other than in genealogies. Recently, articles on less obscureprincesses have been deleted that have more relevant information that was wholly unique. Charles 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, many of these articles could indeed get deleted at AfD --there would be sufficient consensus. I am not going to get over-involved in this, and I will probably not opposed the deletion of articles such as the last group you mentioned--and even if I did, they would probably get deleted anyway. But if you want to keep some traces of them, then the intrinsic nature of family connection means that none of them is really isolated--you can always go far enough back-- Thomas and Philip Rindom are the sons of Countess Desirée of Rosenborg; Paulina Grawe of Diana Grawe. Here, I would carry out not merges but redirects, which is even easier, because one can just go ahead and do it boldly without asking, if you ware reasonably sure there will be no opposition. (this is one of the legitimate tricks of WP--how to remove articles in essence, without actually saying so. It is considered a mere edit, since it can easily be reversed if necessary)

In fact, I've just done it for the 2 Rindons. The history is still there, to be found by clicking on the redirect, as is the talk page, and I altered the succession box for their mother. I also highlighted in bold the names in the article on their mother that do not have articles, as is customary generally. What I am not sure about is whether to keep the bio work group tags on the talk pages for the redirects, and I will ask at the talk page there.I am very comfortable with doing this for one generation. If the boys have anything notable in the way of careers, the redirects can always be changed back to articles. DGG (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish my twenty favorite fellow Wikipedians a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look again at Sylvin Rubinstein? Much, of not most, of it is directly from the webpage [21]. For example, the "Nazi Occupation" section - both of those sentences are directly lifted from the news article. In the "Resistance" section, the paragraphs/sentences that start "It turned out..." and "Werner arranged..." are directly lifted, and that's most of the section that isn't direct quotes from Rubinstein. And before Apeloverage's edit it was even worse. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in fact quite unhappy with this article, and said so on the article talk page. I have now looked further, and commented in some detail there based upon both the English and the German material. The author of the article is a well-establish and reliable editor who has worked on a number of different topics, primarily films. Had it been a newcomer, i would probably have deleted the article immediately. Perhaps he can fix it, based on your & my information. If not, i will stubbify it. DGG (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl. Thanks for your attention and participation :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made a Wiki Hello badge in case anyone's interested in using it for the Meetup. It's on the Meetup page. Nightscream 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]