User talk:DGG/Archive 25 Feb. 2009

Oct08, Nov08, Dec08, Jan09, ... , Mar09, Apr09,

You please help me

Hi dear DGG, some people want to delete my account, my account is everything to me, could you help defend me before might delete me. Thanks--Standforder (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

nobody deleted your account;they deleted your user page. DGG (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Spreadin the word.....

From this discussion, we get the box on the right - cool eh? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work indeed from the two of you! This is the sort of thing that can make a practical positive difference to the encyclopedia! DGG (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Helminthic Therapy Providers Page Deletion Question

Hi, I only log in to Wikipedia intermittently and doing so today noticed a message from you about the deletion of a page I either never knew, or had forgotten, existed. It was the one named in the head of this post. My question is why was I notified about its deletion? I am assuming I must have been listed as a contributor (I have no memory of having done so). Beyond that I am curious how I can offer, if it is even possible, people a page, whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere, that helps people researching this subject (helminthic therapy) to find providers while honoring the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's rules. Judging from your honors and history I am guessing you know the answer to this question, excuse me my ignorance, please.

Could I build a page on some external website as an authoritative source and link to it from Wikipedia? The therapy itself is based on science which is easily referenced, but the providers are just two so far as I know, and a foundation devoted to it popularization. So finding it is difficult. Is it possible to provide this information through Wikipedia while obeying the rules?

thanks in advance, and keep up the great work.

FQ1513 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

the page was nominated for deletion by another user, and you were notified by him at the time, because you had in fact started the article on 20:28, January 23, 2008. and the notice is on your user page. The time shows a discrepancy, at least on my machine, but that's a time-zone problem. It does not show up on your use rcontributions list, because deleted contributions will not show up there. The reason I gave for deletion was however a slip of the mouse, and I have corrected it. The page at that time gave almost no information, being: List of Providers of Helminthic Therapy: http://www.ovamed.org Ovamed: Trichuris Suis Ova (TSO), or pig whipworm eggs. Taken orally in suspension once ever two weeks. Customarily mixed with a fruit drink.; http://autoimmunetherapies.com Autoimmune Therapies: Necator Americanus or hookworm. Applied to the skin, one dose every five years.

This is not encyclopedic material, and it has no reliable references. It's a cross between advertising and a directory. as for other possibilities, one is that the information can be merged with the page on Helminthic therapy However, in this connection, i recall to you your discussion with a very respected editor here who works often on medical topics, [1] about the insertion of the material on that page, where she gives her objections. I consider her argument correct-- but she suggested carrying the discussion of adding links to them on the WP:ELN External links noticeboard, which might be a practical next step. I have my doubts, though, that they will be approved as links, & she and I will probably argue there against it. For the reason she gave, they do not meet our standards.

Another alternative, of having pages for the individual treatments, was rejected also, by yet a third experienced editor, for Ovamed. It was pointed out to you that it needed 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material based on press releases); this would include either information from RSs discussing the use of the specific drug whether positive or negative, but would need to include all views on that, not just those which might be considered as promoting it. That editor suggested trying to build such an article in your user space, but you will not be able to keep it there indefinitely unless you have some progress towards an acceptable article.

If you were to be able to get an article about these treatments in a third party published source that met our standards, then it can be used as a reference in the article on the therapy. I cannot immediately imagine how a web page you wrote for it anywhere else, however, would meet the WP:EL standards.

The basic principle involved is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, where people find information about notable things. It is not a place for the promotion of anything, well-known or not. You will not be permitted to use it as such, directly or indirectly. Thisisn';t a policy of my own invention, though I totally agree with it. I do enforce it when I find You clearly have a conflict of interest on this matter, and, like the other editors here, I suggest you red our Business FAQ (which also applies to non-profit organisations or to conflict of interest generally). DGG (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks, you confirm everything I assumed and will leave the subject alone.FQ1513 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Moving Mission: Impossible

See recent findings and proposal on Talk:Mission: Impossible#Moving the article. I plan to move the article if nobody objects over the next week. I you do have concerns, please note them on the talk page. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• You missed a few redirect counts, but a great point. I never realized hits on redirect names were counted separately. That changes the whole discussion. See my follow-up. I think I am going to avoid User:DGG for a while. First Buenos Aires (Landmarks) and then this! :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hell, no! We make a good team. It was your use of statistics that was the important part, & I just added some complications. Getting actual statistics instead of debating preconceptions will clarify up a great many similar questions about disambiguation.DGG (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fact is, I had fun tracking down the monuments in Buenos Aires and am rather pleased with the result - although when I revisit it a few months from now I will be a lot less pleased. And I think the statistical idea may be useful too, which was triggered by seeing a note on your talk page below the Buenos Aires one that caught my attention. I have only really got involved Wikipedia in the last few months and am still learning a lot. If you come across something I have done, any feedback would always be welcome - be direct. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I want to close off this move request with "no move", but am not sure how to do it. Do I just wait for an administrator to come along and do it?

Sort of disappointing. Not that I have any feelings about the outcome, but I would have liked the statistics to have shown an unexpected result. They didn't. Still, the technique may be useful for other articles. And I did learn something about the value of links to redirect pages. In this case, there is a cluster of related articles about "Mission: Impossible", the TV series, movies, games etc., one of which has the name "Mission: Impossible". Ideally, no articles would point to this one by its primary name. They would all point to a redirect page with a longish name like "Mission: Impossible (the original 1968-1973 TV series)". Aymatth2 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo redirect Dr. Wesley L. Boykin Edits JABSE

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dr. Wesley L. Boykin Edits JABSE, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dr. Wesley L. Boykin Edits JABSE is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dr. Wesley L. Boykin Edits JABSE, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

software notablitiy

Can you point me in the direction of our notability standards for software because they seem extremely low per you stance here [2]?

semi related- What is the point to have an article on WP if it will never because about to be a good article or a B rated article for that matter? 16x9 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. As for the article, a well-known non-inclusionist admin closed it as keep, so my view can't have been unique.
2. In principle, the standard WP:PRODUCT, which, as you will see, does not offer all that much help & as far as I can tell is mostly ignored. In practice, either the WP:GNG, whether there is 2 substantial secondary reliable sources, or, much of the time, the knowledge of people here that the product is important--especially likely if it's the knowledge of the long-time regulars here, a group that does not include myself.
   1. In the particular discussion, the critical issue was whether the sources were good enough. That is inevitably a matter of judgment.
3. More generally, see WP:STUB. My own view, though, is that there is almost no subject here about which a good article could not be written (except for some of the promotional spam that has sneaked in over time & needs to be gotten out) . There are many where it is unlikely that they will be upgraded in the next year or two, but that is mainly a matter of insufficient people in many fields, and of sources that are not yet readily available. This is a long term project, and all the articles are much improved from the start in 2001, before Google Book Search & Google Scholar even existed. Ask me again in another 8 years. DGG (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the infomation. I hate being a deletionist but I guess I see more "promotional spam" than you. To many articles are written for an advertisement of the subject or an "anti"-ad. 16x9 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just look at deletion log and you'll see that i agree with what you said, to a considerable degree--about half of the new articles get deleted, but of the ones that are discarded as totally promotional, at least 25% are about topics for which a sustainable article might be written, though it would take total rewriting. As for the articles already in Wikipedia, see my comment about Largo, below. DGG (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources in deleted article

Hi David, I just came across Non-Muslim view of Ali#References which says see Hadith of position for references. As the latter article has been deleted, would you mind seeing whether the references can easily be retrieved? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted merely as a PROD, so the simplest thing to do is restore it, which I did. It was one of a large group of similarly written articles, now mostly deleted. I think it needs just one good modern source for it to stay--the objection was OR. if you cannot find such a source, let me know after you've gotten what you need, and I will re-delete it as maintenance. DGG (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. User:John Z appears to have added sufficient refs for it to remain. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 1983 UPI article on John Louis Evans

David, I've tried to post my colleague Mark Harris's [account for UPI] in 1983 of the execution of John Louis Evans. Mark wanted to include his article as part of the record on this execution, especially since there is no digital version available online anywhere. I think this is a totally legitimate and valuable addition to the entry on the execution, What's the right procedure for including this. Mark has given me a scanned imaged of one of the several places the original wire story ran.

My other question was about how to move or rename a page. I've read the Wikipedia instructions on this but I don't see where this "move" tab is. Thanks Jackhmason (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

as for moves, you need to be registered for 4 days before you can move pages. Just wait. Then the tab will appear. Read WP:MOVE carefully before you actually use it--there are many traps. Or list it at WQP:RM, or ask me to move it. In any case, if the move is more than trivial, make certain you have consensus.

as for that report, I see no way of inserting in in any Wikipedia project unless there is copyright permission obtained under GFDL. If UPI owns the copyright, I think it most unlikely they will give permission. If Mark owns it, he can donate it, and it would go in wikiSource. But copyright notwithstanding, a key sentence or two, or a single paragraph, could be quoted in the Wikipedia article. I agree it's powerful reporting, but this project could not exist if it did not respect copyright. DGG (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Largo, Florida

Thanks. It needed trimming, but I'm to close to the subject. Dlohcierekim 03:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs more. for the first time I'm scanning pages link to the template "Advert" .(in response to 16X9's challenge, above.) About half the time, there does very much need to be something done to the article. DGG (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I should just gut everything below the advert tag. Start over from scratch. Let someone without COI fill in anything needed. Dlohcierekim 03:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I try not to do that. It just encourages people to put back the same sort of junk. In my experience, if one leaves a little in, people often let it alone. DGG (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm the klutz that wrote that tripe in the first place. I was very new then. I realized I was too close, and left it alone except to revert vandalism, and in hopes a neutral party would step in. Every time I look at it, I want to take an ax to it, but I was afraid I might remove something useful. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please review this decision

In this speedy decline, you state that the list is not "overly promotional"; however the G11 criteria is actually, "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Given that this list does nothing but promote the line ("exclusively promote") and explicitly fails wp:NOTCATALOG ("would need to be fundamentally rewritten"), I think this is a perfect example of a G11 list. Also, these toys/models are thoroughly covered at other articles already, so no information is lost by deleting the article other than the company's wikified catalog. NJGW (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

which other articles? And why should not a summary be here, especially if the price column is removed, as I recommended? DGG (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Gundam, Gundam model, Gunpla Grade, Universal Century, and of course all of these articles. What would a summary say that is not covered many times over at these articles? NJGW (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But that argument would apply to all summaries. On the other hand, if I understand correctly ,this is not a page with a summary list of all of them, just of one type of model? If so, maybe it isn't needed. DGG (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a list of models made by one toy company. It is a catalog. The current summary claims to combine 3 TV shows (as if we had List of GI Joes, Transformers, and GoBots), but the list is just a list of characters already covered in the other articles, plus price, release date, and catalog number. NJGW (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

are the shows no more related than that? Please understand, I'm not challenging you, but trying to become informed through discussion. DGG (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Gundam is a metaseries of Japanese anime, featuring giant robots, or "mecha", created by Sunrise studios."
• "Dunbine is set in Byston Well, a parallel world that resembles the countryside of medieval Europe with kingdoms ruled by monarchs in castles, armies of unicorn-riding cavalry armed with swords and crossbows, and little winged creatures called Ferario"
• "Patlabor refers to Mobile Police Patlabor, a mangafranchise created by Headgear."

OK, deleted.. My error. DGG (talk)

Brüel & Kjær synonym

How can I add a synonym for the Brüel & Kjær article on Wikipedia. Since the title of the article includes Danish end German lettering, including an alternative title for the article would help many people find the article...people who may not have a Danish keyboard. Since the article is posted on the English version of Wikipedia, the title should also appear in an English alternative (Bruel & Kjaer). Is there any way to add synonyms for the title and key words for searches? Thank you again, for all your assistance in becoming familiar with the world of Wikipedia. Kasper Broue (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

done. But see WP:REDIRECT for the future. Within Wikipedia, by the way, the edit box is followed by a complete range of accented and special characters for use in writing articles.DGG (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination)

I encourage you to respond to comments about your keep vote. Timmeh! 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

what i find impossible to understand is the multiple opposition to the article. it would seem among the most obvious of topics. I explained there a little further. And after all, with one or two more published comments, it could be inserted again even if deleted now. DGG (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

we lost this one: probably worth a DRV or a modification to NOT CRYSTAL DGG (talk) 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Great Shrewsbury Snowfight of February 3rd

FYI the follwing also exists Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Shrewsbury Snowfight of February 3rd. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

so I saw. A more appropriate instance for a SNOW closing will rarely happen, so I did that, although perhaps by IAR. My appreciation to the students for the opportunity. DGG (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The decision taken by certain members of the wikipedia not to discuss their plans to delete this article on the talk page shows a distinct disregard for fellow members of the community. An article is being prepared for the local paper which doubtless would have been added to the reference in due course (this was a significant event, not only for the schools but also due to the injuries and general disruption caused), had members not acted in such haste. I expect the article will reappear presently.-- Daniel Greenwood 03.02.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.159.22 (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

and similarly for every school in the country. See WP:ONE EVENT, and stop playing games with us. If it gets to be an Olympic sport, let me know. I need to get back to my own shoveling. DGG (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sequence rule - speedy deletion

You were wondering why I wanted to have the article sequence rule, which I created, deleted... so, it turns out that I screwed up. I didn't realize that this topic was already covered by the page Cahn-Ingold-Prelog priority rules, which I didn't discover until much later. Also, although this rule is supposed to have five sub-rules, I am no longer confident that they are as I have written them - I really screwed up, I didn't even consult the references that I supplied, instead I was told these rules by word of mouth (seriously!) Essentially the article has no meaningful purpose and I'm embarrassed by my mistakes, so I'd like it deleted. Bbi5291 (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC) OK, the best thing to do in this case seems to be to redirect the article to Cahn-Ingold-Prelog priority rules, which I just did, though it doesn't take an admin. . It's a meaningful search term, and the redirect will save the next guy from doing the same thing again. As a general rule, it's theway to handle accidental duplicates. If you though of an alternate wording, so will someone else DGG (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

hey

U-got mail..--Hu12 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Parveen Chopra

I see you just delete this - it was on its third incarnation. Are there guidelines on how many times a page is re-created before it is protected? pablo_hablo. 18:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

it depends on whether there might be an article there. In this case there might be. I will not protect in such a case regardless, because someone else might write the article. Even me, sometimes. I will only protect if it's a matter of abuse or vandalism. What i do instead is block, and the rule for that is either 3 or 4 warnings. Since one needs a user name to create an article, this can deal with it. if someone starts hopping around usernames to avoid the blocks, then it starts becoming vandalism.

A few other admins block or protect much sooner than I. (see my block log for how seldom I do it--if one warns appropriately I find it rarely needed) One of the weird things here is that there is no way to get consistent practice--but at AIV and AN/I there is agreement that full warnings are almost always needed, and I saw the author here had not really received a final warning. 18:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I was just wondering if there was a consistent approach but it seems more sensible (if more work) to take each article as a separate case. pablo_hablo. 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Massey

Hi, could you perhaps have a look at the discussion at this AfD? There is a new user there and the citation data he gives are like nothing I have ever seen. I don't really know what to make of this and your advice will be appreciated. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have commented, and have also asked a specialist for advice. DGG (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Outline of Knowledge / Geography WikiProject Collaboration: Country outlines

As you probably remember, last spring we started work on the "Geography and places" branch of Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge. (WikiProject Lists of basic topics has been renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge). The geography branch is in the form of a set of outline pages including one for every present-day nation or state in the world. That's 247 pages! This has been a huge undertaking, involving dozens of editors using advanced wiki-tools.

These pages have come a long way, and it won't be long before the whole set is complete enough to be moved to article space into the encyclopedia for the benefit of all. But there's still a lot of work left, and we could use all the help we can get!

While some editors prefer to work on one country at a time, most of our team members take on a particular entry and complete it across all the pages. This has come to be our standard type of task. To facilitate this process, we apply tools such as AutoWikiBrowser, Linky, and WikEd, all of which can be used to process a large number of pages in various (direct or indirect) ways.

In case you are interested in what we've been up to, here's a progress report:

Lately, development has been slow but continuous:

On our recruiting initiative, Penubag has done a fantastic job on the images for the awards we'll be using for our project's collaborations and contests. We now have 3 awards: a medal, a trophy, and a race ribbon. They all look tight. The trophy needs a small adjustment, but other than that, all 3 award images are complete and ready to use to create awards with.

Spartaz has warned us of (threatened to take) G4 (speedy delete) action if we run a competition that resembles the previously deleted Awards Center page. So whatever we do, any contests we run must differ substantially from the methods used there.

One type of competition I've been exploring is "edit racing". I'm in the process of working the bugs out of this concept - the first race didn't work as expected - you see, because we only had an award for first place, so the opponent didn't think it worthwhile to continue once it was clear who the winner would be. And since editors are in different time zones and usually need to start the race at different times, we need to base winning on personal start times - he who completes his assigned edits in the least time (rather than first), wins. And last but not least is quality control. What good is racing if the participants' edits are ripe with errors? So I'll be exploring possibilities such as using a referee (assigned to oversee a particular race), having participants watching each other for errors to knock them back, etc. I'm not sure yet.

Rich Farmbrough has been applying his bot expertise to filling in blanks in the country outlines (the population and area entries). I'm amazed at the number of edits he pumps out each day on a myriad of projects - ours makes up but a small time slice of his activity, and yet he has saved us many hours of manual work. Perhaps we should look into how he gets so much done.  :)

Zlerman has chosen to work on specific outlines, and has taken on Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. He also has been keen on noticing and reporting design issues pertaining to the whole set of country outlines. Keep up the good work!

Highfields is in charge of capitals, adding them to all the outlines. He is also our first race winner. Check out the award on his user pages.

In case you didn't know, this project has expanded to include work on any and all sets of pages represented on the country outlines. Once the set of country outlines go live (in article space), traffic will likely increase for all the links included on them. The quality and usefulness of those pages will reflect heavily on the country outlines. The outlines, which are essentially lists of links, are only as good as the links they present, and therefore we've branched out to solve the biggest problems with those as well. So far, we've taken on:

• The creation of disambiguation pages for country adjectivals ("German", "French", "Taiwanese", etc.) We're about half done with these.
• Wikifying the CIA World Factbook statistics on the "demographics of" country pages. We've been renaming those sections to provide a key string that AWB can use for targetting (for skipping and filtering). Once that's done, we'll be able to break the clean-up down into simple AWB search/replace tasks, because we'll be able to target just those pages that include the CIA stuff.
• We've also been renaming the "Cuisine of" articles to their adjectival forms ("Chinese cuisine", "Italian cuisine", etc.), for consistency and because the adjective-based terms are generally the most commonly-used names for those cuisine types.

Blackadam2 and Thehelpfulone have been helping out with the "demographics of" pages mentioned above.

And we have a couple speed addicts (addicted to wiki-velocity, not drugs)...

Both Robert Skyhawk and Thehelpfulone prefer (and excel at) simple AWB search/replaces. Robert hasn't actually joined our team yet, but he has been helping out quite a bit from the sidelines (via the WP:AWB/Tasks page. Unfortunately, there has recently been a non-AWB chore that has been holding things up on the AWB front - an edit to all the headings which had to be reverted before too many new edits were made, because any new edits would make the reversion more difficult. The headings have been restored, so now the way is clear for AWB operations, and there are many search/replace tasks in the queue. AWB assignments have started again!

There's a similar bottleneck on the "Demographics of" pages (the "keying" mentioned above), but that's almost cleared too.  :)

With my internet access somewhat crippled as of late, I've been finding it difficult to keep up with you guys. However, I expect to be accessing a Linky-capable workstation on a faster server (I'm on it right now, as you can probably tell from my contributions list for the past couple of days), and so I should really pick up speed. Feels goooooood.  :)

Recruiting has been a bit slow (but steady), due in part to my crippled access, and because we've been waiting for the images for the awards to be completed. I expect the team to grow more rapidly as the bottlenecks are removed.

Well that's what's been happenin', and here's what's in the pipeline...

We've got a long list of entries that need to be completed across all the outlines and related page sets. If you would like to dive in with advanced wiki-tools to process this whole set of pages on one or more tasks, drop me a note!

As for me, I'm about to begin work on a set of lists that corresponds to all the standard links on the country outlines, and these will be presented on the Topic outline of countries which will be organized exactly like the country outlines. Aside from being an extremely useful navigation aid, it will allow editors to easily see the state of country coverage on Wikipedia - each list will be one link-set, and each list can be used with our wiki-tools to process the pages listed. I'll provide you with a link once I get up to speed on this.

In the meantime, keep in touch!

Cheers,

The Transhumanist 00:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

_Housecalls

You marked the article we had put up quickly as blatent advertising and spam. The problem here is that our competitor has a page up just like that and is is going fine for them. The next problem is that relevant information is going to be put into that page about the court case that Geek Squad had against us, and we won. The page is informational, just like theirs. If all of our competitors get to put things up, so should we. Especially when our page is going to actually be informative about multiple companies who have pages up on wikipedia already. I do believe that the court case and other things like it apply here. It is something that should be recorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.139.6 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

looking at the article, I see it is made up of a description of your business, & a discussion of a trademark case. Except for the case, the business has as of yet no claim to notability (20 employees vs the main competitors 18,000) and that part is entirely promotional. We are not a directory, and don't list all companies in a business, but instead write articles about only the ones that have already achieved importance. But the part of the trademark case might be significant,so I am undeleting so you can develop that. --though you will need good 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material based on press releases). The interviews from the boston papers now used as sources seem entirely derived from PR, as are most such interviews, and are not sufficient to rely on, &. since the case was settled by arbitration, there will obviously be some difficulty in documenting it fully. If you haven't made any progress in a week, I will nominate for regular deletion, so the community can decide. 09:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

where I come from, The Boston Globe is considered a reputable source. You say the interviews seem entirely derived from press releases, and yet, there are quotes from both sides (Geek Housecalls and Geek Squad) which is certainly atypical of a press release issued by either party in litigation. Further, there was no press release. The Boston Globe reporter discovered the suit during a routine scan of court documents (digging for dirt)and contacted Geek Housecalls and Geek Squad independently to formulate his story. This story was originally published on the front page of the print edition business section. It is, of course,now only available online in BG archives. --98.217.230.166 (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

so write to make this clear.DGG (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Not asking you to write the article for me, but can you offer suggestions as to how to clarify? I thought having references was how clarity was achieved. Am I better to quote the Globe article? Thanks--Atrask (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

B. Ryan Peppers

You might want to take a look here [3]. RMHED. 02:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I declined to speedy it on copyvio because i did not think it copyvio.I never said the article should be kept. The prior history was when I was new here, but I sort of remembered it. I can think of numerous ways to get rid of this, but G12 is not one of them. I will think of another. DGG (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And I thought of four different ones, & they each seem sufficient. I think I will protect as well, just in case. And, for that matter, block. DGG (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to tag it G10, but as it had one reliable source I wasn't sure it qualified. G10 says "...and may also include a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced," Does that mean if it's entirely negative but has sources it's not speediable, even if the sources aren't reliable?
As you say though it quite rightly qualified under other criteria. RMHED. 03:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For G10, if the purpose is to disparage rather than inform, it's like the reverse of promotional, even if sourced. For BLP, the quality and number of the sources needed depends on the nature of the material. For contents of this sort, the BLP criterion is DO NO HARM -- which can be overly extended, but appears very applicable here. The original discussions were, I think, before the current BLP rules.DGG (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That article certainly has a long and messy history involving many AfD's and a DRV. That's what often happens when an internet meme involves a real person. RMHED. 04:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Input at The Man Who Would Be Queen mediation?

I know there is little reason for you to be following the mediation discussions regarding The Man Who Would Be Queen, but there is something going on for which I would appreciate your input.

The mediator (SlimVirgin) appears to be of the philosophy that in her role as mediator, her interpretations of WP policies (and their grey areas) supercede the consensuses of multiple noticeboard discussions. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

As I said on the mediation page, overturning consensus does not appear to me to be in line with how WP works. I posed the point here, and any input would be appreciated.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking in every day or two. I just gave an opinion there with respect to RS, and the general question of involvement. I doubt either is what you want to hear. I doubt it they are actually what anyone in the discussion wants to hear. SV will do the mediation in her own way, as any mediator would. I would not mediate this one, for I do not think it susceptible to mediation. I gave at the beginning my opinion on how to proceed. DGG (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the only thing I'd say I wanted to hear was an outside opinion. (If/when I am incorrect, I'd prefer to know sooner rather than later.) Nonetheless, if what you mean by what you said at the beginning is that the COI-editors should step aside, then I do agree...and the mediation appears to be talking about every issue but that one despite that that was the issue we brought to mediation in the first place.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spryng

You commented on that page that you had proposed a modification on a talk page, but I do not see anything. If your proposal was either to find the same concept under another name (I do not see one just yet) or to treat various applications &c. of cubic restoring force then I absolutely agree. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is a very general one, to modify the MOS to make it plain that neologisms like Sprong are encyclopedic. [9]. The discussion there is based upon an older concept of OR, and I think consensus is now to accept such things. I think this will take too long to actually help at the afd. I wont have time to really start this for a few days. DGG (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now it makes sense - thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Fennell you wrote, "Book reviews needed."

Hi,

I found exerpts of reviews for Handbook of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome from the publisher so it is likely somewhat biased. [10]. I don't know how to handle or describe this without doing original research. Advice? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

reviews found on publishers pages can either be blurbs, or excerpts from published reviews. For the first, no matter how distinguished the person quoted, if it was not independently published it does not count. For the second, you can use them as guides to find the reviews you need. Now,on the albany healthmanagement page in external references, the first is exactly what does not work, but the one by Patel is usable, if you can actually find the correct reference, & it turns out to be more than a brief paragraph. For getting the correct bibliographic reference, the first step is Google Scholar. For finding additional reviews, try Google Scholar and Google News Archive. Beyond there, are the actual indexes to book reviews; any librarian can help at least with identifying these, school, public or college. The review that is really needed is of the book she wrote herself, "Managing Chronic Illness: The Four Phase Approach". You might as well learn how to do it, for you will need them to defend the David Sheffield Bell article also and in general for people like this. The argument is going to be that writers of popular books on these illnesses are unlikely to be notable unless they are either a/true best sellers or b/noticed by the mainstream press with full reviews or c/actually meet WP:PROF as researchers.

Now, a trick, for anybody with an elaborate commercial site like hers. Look for a page like http://www.patriciafennell.com/mediakit/mediakit.htm . It often contains refs to things about the person or business. Here, I see 2 more. "Inside MS" is a very reputable patient-oriented newsletter that is mainstream, not fringe. See their web site. CFIDS Chronicle is similar, and may be just as good, but I'm not familiar with it. But you cant quote it from her site, you've got to find it.

I apologize, though, for not having the time to actually find all this myself. DGG (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

PS add material to the article right now as you get it, not to the talk page-- so people coming to the article can see it. DGG (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Ward20 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dirt Sheet Duo

Hello, I just noticed that someone has moved the page John Morrison and The Miz to Dirt Sheet Duo. That is one of their nicknames. This move was undiscussed. It won't let me move it back because there has been edit history at John Morrison and The Miz. Hope you can help! Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 00:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

not my sort of topic, sorry, and I am not comfortable doing this when I do not understand the issues. As a general rule, this is the sort of thing that should be discussed at the talk page first. If there is consensus, ask at WP:RM. DGG (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, an admiin from our WikiProject moved it back. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 01:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Gonzonoir's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Monroe Street House

If you don't mind, I merged rather than deleted. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

even better. DGG (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news

But Malcolm Schosha's at it again. He followed Untwirl to Rachel Corrie, despite the repeated warnings against edit-warring against him, and is now reverting him both by proxy (PR then myself), and then directly reverted him later on. That was in the space of three hours, and he's now posted this threat to demand that his reverts be restored.

To my knowledge he had no prior involvement at this page, and he only began making token attempts to "discuss" his repeated removal of one side's arguments well-after the fact. Which of these two leads is genuinely NPOV is still being debated, I agree. But I believe his actions at the page are wikistalking rather than good-faith attempts at debate. arimareiji (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I consider that the material he deleted has no place in the lede, which should be as plain a statement as possible. It does belong elsewhere in the article. I do not consider it a matter of POV. And anyone is free to take matters to AN/I, though I would not recommend taking this there. DGG (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't trying to stop an edit war, he was repeatedly reverting to one of two content-disputed versions. I will in fact do what he's claiming he did, i.e. remove both disputed versions as a temporary measure to make sure this doesn't flame up again. But I don't feel safe in doing so immediately, because he has taken it to AN/I.

I'm surprised that you're again taking Malcolm's side of it. When you overturned Gwen Gale's week-block of him two weeks ago, you warned him thus (my bolds): "And the only practical way you will be able to avoid violating 3rr again is to avoid reverting altogether. Discuss the matter on the talk page instead. I suggest further, that you not concentrate of the exact wording of specific points in controversial articles--such disputes are rarely productive. The best thing to do with a difficult article, is usually to find some additional indisputably good sources.

"You now have a choice: if you do mean to stop editing, you can stop. If you want to contribute peacefully, you can. Or, if you contribute in the manner you have been doing, you will receiver longer blocks, soon quite likely indefinite. IO won;t hesitate to do it myself."

In several different aspects, he's flagrantly disregarding your warning. He twice reverted, and reverted again three hours later, over "exact wording" in a "controversial article". Only after doing this did he come to the Talk page for the first time. His reverts were, in fact, to remove reliably-sourced wording and replace it with unsourced wording. And they were quite arguably wikistalking, since he had no involvement with the page until the very user he was getting blocked for edit-warring against came to it. arimareiji (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not take anyone's side. I support good edits.DGG (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe one definition of edit-warring would be "a dispute over which content is good, by contrast with vandalism reversion." I wasn't aware that "being right" was a defense for edit-warring or for wikistalking.

His claims to have just accidentally stumbled onto the page after Untwirl, who he was blocked for edit-warring against, aren't particularly credible. His first edit on the page was only eight edits after Untwirl's. arimareiji (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If it is an AN/I it will be settled there by consensus. You may perfectly well be correct in your evaluation, but there is no point in trying to persuade me individually. I am not his partisan. I will defend this edit, but leave others to judge his behavior. DGG (talk)

It is in AN/I, and no one else has spoken - likely, no one will. With all due respect, your assertion of "I won't hesitate to do it myself" comes across as hollow given that (whatever you think of the reverts he was making) his behavior flies straight in the face of what you warned him against. Unless, of course, "being the right one" is indeed a defense in 3RR. That should change the landscape considerably. arimareiji (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I consider myself too involved at this point to take administrative action; the more you urge me, the more unsuitable it would be. DGG (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion following your unblocking him two weeks ago was that you wouldn't hesitate to act if he began the same pattern of reverting without discussion that had prompted his several blocks prior. I'm not sure how that makes for a CoI ("too involved") that prevents you from doing so, but surely you have good reason - possibly, as you said, because in this case you personally agree with the reverts he kept making without discussion.

However, I'm curious - does this mean that you're only too involved to warn or block him? I would think that CoI would cover undoing his blocks based on wanting to "support [his] good edits" even moreso, should a less-involved admin have to make the unhappy decision to take action - but that's just my perspective. arimareiji (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Shaw (mathematician)

Sorry for being defensive; I am training to be a professional mathematician, and didn't want anybody (particularly future colleagues) seeing it to think I'd expressed a negative opinion when one wasn't meant. Ray (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) -- all OK here DGG (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Dynasty

How do you find that the article of The Dynasty is related to a company? It is used to describe a new private building in Hong Kong. If it is deleted, I think Vision City should be also deleted because The Dynasty is the phase 2 development of Vision City. Also, there are many photos to support the article and I don't think the article is useless. Please look it clearly before you deleted it! If you don't know the article, it doesn't mean it should be removed. Ricky@36 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it clearly in the first place. The excessive number of photos is one of the features that made it so promotional. It does not matter whether or not there was conflict of interest actually involved. Also indicative was the statement that it was a desirable building because of the many transit line serving it, followed by long list of them. It appears a major building, so it is possible that an acceptable article on the subject could be written, but first see our Business FAQ and our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. Consider also adding the information to the other article. DGG (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The photos are referred from the Chinese version of Wikipedia. They can be removed to avoid promotion. Please give me back the copy of The Dynasty first. I may try to amend and repost the article soon. Ricky@36 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I restored it to mainspace and amended it myself. That the name has changed needs a reference. And do consider a merge. Better one strong article. DGG (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treatment for the plague

Hi there. I'm finding your comment here difficult to parse. Is this what you intended to write? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

fixed. Thanks. My keyboard sometimes has a mind of its own, and a not very good mind at that. DGG (talk)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen

Hello. Please see the above page as there has been a change in mediator and state whether or not you accept the new mediator. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Codex Leicester (disambig) is not REDIRECT

You have asked for this page to be RfDed. However this page is not a REDIRECT page. Please delete as requested. Regards, JohnI (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

you are right, it's a disam, which usually go to MfD, not RfD. As I've said from time to time, we have a confusing number of XfDs. But what is the reason to delete.? DGG (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) Unnecessary (only 2 entries) (2) Misnamed Disambiguation page. (3) Unlikely search target. JohnI (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, take it to MfD DGG (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

List of top Telugu-language films

Could you please expand your argument with a comment on my nom statement, rather than Lugnuts' faulty assumption. I said it was a copy of part of an existing Teluga list with a POV problem. Mandsford's comment didn't really address my concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think his later response answers your objections. I've said all I want to say. I am of course not always correct, but if you are right, the consensus will agree with you. DGG (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Miranda

Hello DGG. About that AfD, you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I certainly could protect the page and would have done that had it not occurred to me that this article shouldn't even exist in the first place. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, & I was saying that doing so would have been sufficient. You meant that sub-borderline articles are not necessarily worth the trouble of getting rid of if they're no problem otherwise. There is something to be said for that, but I think it's a dangerously slippy slope. DGG (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you take a second look?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Theon‎. I don't think it's reasonable to call him a "unit head." There are hundreds if not thousands of comparably-ranked managers at NASA—at least 250 from his section alone. Thanks for your consideration. Cool Hand Luke 03:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

there may well be hundreds of notable people at NASA. DGG (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Codex Leicester (disambig) is not REDIRECT

You have asked for this page to be RfDed. However this page is not a REDIRECT page. Please delete as requested. Regards, JohnI (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

you are right, it's a disam, which usually go to MfD, not RfD. As I've said from time to time, we have a confusing number of XfDs. But what is the reason to delete.? DGG (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) Unnecessary (only 2 entries) (2) Misnamed Disambiguation page. (3) Unlikely search target. JohnI (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, take it to MfD DGG (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

List of top Telugu-language films

Could you please expand your argument with a comment on my nom statement, rather than Lugnuts' faulty assumption. I said it was a copy of part of an existing Teluga list with a POV problem. Mandsford's comment didn't really address my concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think his later response answers your objections. I've said all I want to say. I am of course not always correct, but if you are right, the consensus will agree with you. DGG (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

James Dixon & Sons

Hi I have added a Book citation , and was wondering if its O.K to ask you to remove the template You had put ? Hope its O.K I am askink , (Iam quite new to all this... Kind regards --Avner Strauss (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a copyedit, to clean up spelling, punctuation, grammar, and links. Please check that " fipples" is the correct term--do you perhaps mean "nipples"? Please also check that I got it right when I put in the quotation marks for the Stamps. And those addresses--in what city are they? I've left the tag, because it really would help if you could find some good reference on the internet as well as a printed book; ideally, you should document every individual point you have made in the article. But the article is good enough to stand. For future articles, please try to write a little more accurately, and consult our guide to writing Wikipedia articles.DGG (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks , Fipple is the corect term and a standart among whistle collectors and makers for the back part of a whistle's mouthpiece ( Mostly made of wood in Brass whistles ),nipples have to do with some old Hunting guns or loading equipment. The quotes marks are O.K I was wondering maybe just use '...' ??, as I did in other whistle makers. The F L Johnson is certainly a great addition !! ! Thanks took me a while to find who added. The adresses are in Sheffield. There is a Printed brochure about Sheffield Arm accesories makers,& exhibition published, I gave my copy but it has a lot more info, mostly about flasks and reloading tools and amunition. Glad its good enough to stand now it can be improved . Thanks for advice I will try to follow . --Avner Strauss (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fan Mail

A. Are you a girl? B. If so, will you marry me?

I wasn't even going to get into the content question of what writers should have bibliographies, etc... but to be told that deleting "Once wrote an article for maxim (date and title unknown)" had ruined a bibliography made me feel like i was taking crazy pills. At any rate, you were a ray of sanity in my day. Go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC) A. no: my name is on my user page B. I'm married already. But I'm not the least insulted about either part. DGG (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

VTS

Yeah...actually two of the ones you picked up on were the two I was least sure about. I'm still a bit new to this whole AFD thing, though...thanks for the advice. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, have a look and tell me what you think - is there something else I'm missing? I can't help but feel like I've made a hash of things. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I clarified things, thanks. You helpfully found a batch of problem articles that showed the typical effect of COI: writing articles on notable and less notable alike. DGG (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. Honestly, I'd have been quite happy leaving them with the PROD notice, but the creator kept removing it when he expanded. And in such cases as these I much prefer having the input of others to determine notability. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 05:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I shall explain things to the creator; sometimes its better than formal process when people are stubborn. DGG (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's probably what I should have done to begin with - I'm not sure how diplomatic I would have managed to be, though. Yesterday wasn't one of my better days in that regard. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Alas, I have too frequently seen evidence of the sort of thing you describe. To be perfectly honest it's why I stick to simple article editing most of the time, and don't get too involved with the mechanics of the project. I don't have the patience for it, really. Your fortitude is far more admirable than mine. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 19:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

3rd strike and out vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/150.101.115.53 Cluebot has undone it, but recommend blocking this account or IP or whatever it is you do at this stage. JJJ999 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• In fact, if this mirrors last time it'd be best to lock the page to anonymous users again for a month or two. CheersJJJ999 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your talk p. is still protected against anons, till Oct.; I semi-protected ACT for 2 weeks--As for blocking, I want to see if he strikes somewhere else next. It'll be easier than spotting another IP. DGG (talk)

Splitting Avalanche Article

I'd like to revise the Avalanche article. I spent some time last night making changes which were then reverted by ClueBot. I tried to notify ClueBot of a false positive but the reporting page is not functional. I'd also like to split the topic into two or more separate categories. Most avalanches do not involve people ... therefore a lot of the information in the article is biased toward human-avalanche interaction. This should be cleaned up.

You can examine my changes to the article and you'll see that they're not vandalism. Not sure if I should even bother at this point as Wikipedia makes it SO much work to contribute. No wonder the Avalanche article is so poorly written; most avalanche professionals won't deal with this sort of hassle. I'm happy to give it one more try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somerandomicicle (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not hard to learn to work here if you learn gradually. First, remember that this is a specialized community and a specialised editing environment, and will take a while to get up to speed--and almost nobody ever does learn all the parts. It's not enough to know the subject and know how to write. You started out right, by editing an existing article. Perhaps you should have concentrated on simply expanding the section of interest, and discussing the possibility of a split on the article talk page. There are a number of considerations, not all of them obvious. Read WP:SPLIT for an introduction to the problems. you set up something usually difficult to do, which is splitting an article--this cannot be done the way you tried to do it.

Let me think a day or two on how this should best be handled--the first thing I need to do is read the articles carefully myself. I'll then sort things out and get things ready for you to properly upgrade.

One immediate thing to pay attention to: this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to-do it book. We write articles in the third person, in an formal way, not addressing the reader: do not word things like: "You need to first do ... " but "In order to accomplish this, the first thing to do is ...

If you want to learn things systematically, start with reading our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. And then read pertinent parts, bit by bit, of one or another of the two excellent books on writing for Wikipedia that have recently appeared & both available in print and free online: Broughton, John. Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. The missing manual. Cambridge: O'Reilly, 2008, ISBN 9780596515164, (available online at http://safari.oreilly.com) and Ayers, Phoebe, Charles Matthews, and Ben Yates.How Wikipedia Works: And How You Can Be a Part of It. San Francisco: No Starch Press, 2008 ISBN 9781593271763 (also available online at http://www.nostarch.com). DGG (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Offline

No need to ever contact me off line from my perspective. I'm a big believer in daylight. BestBali ultimate (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you asked, i looked. These are all mine (some accidental): [[11]] . There should be another IP traceable to mid town from around that same time (late september/early october) but i can't find it.

Found it [[12]]. You now can review every wikipedia edit i've ever made. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

All clear. I ha asked offline in case there were a name you did not want to disclose online. DGG (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably should have been an A3

It's simply that the thing was a WP:MADEUP candidate and I thought that the A7 applied. Did you want to AfD it? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Madeupdoes not apply to A7 or A3 or any other speedy criterion. Please restore it. I think it quite possibly tenable if someone were to work on it, but if you want to afd it , sure. perhaps someone will see it there. I'd normally say prod, except that the creator will surely remove the tag immediately. DGG (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

article

Hello, recieved a msg from Dlohcierekim about an article i just posted. i'm on a contract with this company at the current time and felt necessary to post a bit about them (pls ignore username, bad choice as my intention was to only post up this one article about them). I've taken what was on their About page and trimmed the language to be as neutral as possible (imo of course). This organization is pretty important in the history of education in BC. I understand conflict of interest, but feel this group is fairly well known in education circles and is of value.

Please let me know what parts do not meet requirements and I can have them removed, and possibly find some more references about the history over the last 100 years.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Openschoolbc (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

actually feel free to delete

It keeps getting marked as conflict of interest so just ahead and delete the article please. I'd rather have nothing there then have it marked as conflict of interest. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Openschoolbc (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I did delete it, after seeing that it was of provincial reach only--judging by the order form, it is almost entirely set up to provide material within BC. I also searched some databases, including ERIC, and could not find adequate references to use. If you can find any magazine articles, let me know, & I will restore it with them as sources, & I will rewrite as necessary. DGG (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Return of the Mergist

See Captive orcas, an attempt to salvage content from the set of articles flagged for deletion. Most of the {{main}} links lead to articles in AfD. Monuments, I like them if dramatic and equestrian. Bus routes, don't think so. Individual Orcas? Aymatth2 (talk)

I saw those. I defended these once. I'm not sure if I will now If I did, the argument would be that they are equally distinctive to individual humans, and, by the nature of their being exhibited, are public figures. I extend this to well known chimpanzees also. I esteem them much more highly than some hominids with unassailable articles here. DGG (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Trolling the AfD list can be depressing. I tend to skip the hominids. I just did National Referral Hospital (Thimphu) to clear my head, and a couple of related ones. Not a great article, but the first and only one for a hospital in Bhutan. The first and only one. Is this a well-balanced encyclopedia? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The balance will depend on the interests of the people who come here, and there is no way to remedy it except recruitment. DGG (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reluctantly agree. The mix of articles in the English Wikipedia presumably fairly accurately reflect the interests of both editors and readers. That will not stop me writing the odd article nobody is likely to read. Loch Alsh! :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the words of Wes Nisker, "If you don't like the news ... go out and make some of your own." Bongomatic 15:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My goal is more modest, which is to look for other good things to report that are not reported. He probably would have worded this a little more radically, to look for good things to report which are suppressed from being reported--in our case, more from indifference than from malice. What he meant, of course, was something I do not disagree with either, which is to change the world so there will be more good things to report. The role of an encyclopedia in this is to inform about the world, so people will know what to change. DGG (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed . . . and I certainly meant it by analogy—to create new articles about real topics rather than to engage in making stuff up and writing about it. Bongomatic 00:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What has been concerning me lately - and I have only got addicted to Wikipedia lately - is not so much imbalance or triviality as insensitivity and outright bias. I got into debates recently about ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, Nestorian Stele, Fred Shapiro and others where it just didn't feel right. The decisions were probably correct based on the rules, but they left me feeling really uneasy. Something wrong here. I am going to spend more time writing new articles, avoid the AfD list. Mega Rice Project (Kalimantan) needs a whole lot of work, and a bunch of related articles. All sorts of great books just have stubs. There is so much to write about. I am much more comfortable as an essayist than a critic. Signing off. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Icehockeybcboy

My mistake. I'll go fix it. Thanks for the note. --Rrburke^(talk) 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Saint John Fisher College

Wouldn't the article belong at St. John Fisher College instead? Cheers, Enigma^msg 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked their website, and St. is their official form, so I moved it. DGG (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you get the chance. Thanks, Enigma^msg 18:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. DGG (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Judgement

Yes, I was arguing that judgement was correct; the user in question had been kind enough to do some copyediting for me and had changed "judgement" to "judgment". Ironholds (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry if I got mixed up on who was saying what. I should have known you'd get it right. DGG (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why thanks! Not sure if it is a comment about my nationality or a general compliment, but ta either way :). Ironholds (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your userpage, by the way; kudos on being a former/current librarian! I worked as a bookmonkey for about three months and still have odd bits of the dewey floating around my head (remember Ironholds, 340.9 for legal history). Ironholds (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)#Neutral

I have created a Neutral section for those who agree with the premise but not the method, or some other aspect, which may be altered following talkpage discussion. Perhaps you would wish to review your !vote under the changed circumstances? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal as presented, I am not the least neutral. If you wish to propose a general idea without specific implementation, then withdraw this, since there is an already overwhelming negative consensus, and propose "the premise" by itself. DGG (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Wiki article "Ernest Sipes"

Thanks for takingthe time to read this. I'm referencing the proposed deletion of the Ernest Sipes picture/article deletion. To be honest, I'm really not that great with computers, but know Mr. Spes personally and have contributed to his page. At the University of Alaka, where there are professors studying the Russian American Company, Sipes work is being quoted and his book is in use at UAF and at the bookstore. I contributed the pictures used to illustrate this person's Wiki page and firmly believe he and his work deserves to be here. Of course, you have the right to delete the pictures and articles, but just because they are not referenced 100% correctly seems a little arbitary to me. I for one would like to see it left like it is. Contact me if there is anything else I can do. Respectfully, Frank Bentner, 3.5 Mile, North Douglas Hwy, Juneau, Alaska —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Bentner (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are protesting to me in particular, because I have never proposed to delete the article: StarMississippi originally proposed to on April 27, 2008. As nobody spoke for it, Rjd060 deleted it on May 2. You restored a longer version of it on May 7, StarMississippi saw it, and did not send it for a deletion discussion, but along with another editor, added tags for needed improvements. You improved it considerably, & removed the tags, but did not address all the issues Recently, another editor added back tags questioning notability, and asking for additional references. At the moment, nobody is proposing to delete it, but it does have some major problems, and I am not sure it would stand, at least in its current form.

However, perhaps you wrote to me as someone who tries to help articles. So i do, & I'll be glad to help you. Here are the problems as I see them:

1. His notability is as a writer; there seems to be one book from a regional publisher and a small number of magazine articles in good magazines. Our standards are in WP:BIO, and this is marginal; it depends on what other people say about the book and whether they cite the articles. I see one review of the book in a printed source whose importance i cannot determine (page numbers are needed) but there needs to be more to establish the book as important.
2. The article refers to original research, cited by scholars. However, except for the book and articles mentioned, which appear rather popular than scholarly, I do not see such published research, and I do not see references to such citations,except for the Russian article.
3. The writing is in disproportionate detail, and the article consequently reads a promotion of his work, not a reasonable description of it.
4. This especially applies to the photographs. We would normally illustrate an article like this with one photograph of the author.
5. Except for the review, all the references are to his own works, not to independent sources.
6. You are apparently involved as more than as a friend, for, according to the license information you gave, you created the photographs yourself on his various expeditions. If the licensing information is correct,. you were present on all of them. This is not prohibited, but serves as an alert that you may not be writing from the objective point of view that someone not involved in his work would do.

The first step here is to distinguish between other people's works works, which are references, and his works, which are not, but do get listed. I've just done this for you. Next is your job: finding the scholarly ethnological work to which you refer, and finding citations to it. Add them either to the article or the talk page, & I'll check for formatting. Meanwhile, I will reduce the article to a size that can be justified. DGG (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for spelling/grammar suggestions. Ikip (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

RTS International

Sorry, but I fail to see any indication of importance, unless "global finance company" counts... – ukexpat (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

you were right, since you already took it to afd, all I can do is say so there, which I have done. DGG (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Zelenoff

Why deleted? I wrote the article - sourced information on his fight, and link ot his boxrec record showing his debut as a professional boxer. If there was an issue of BLP then it should have been fixed, not the article deleted. I think you should restore and use AfD if required.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see no way of fixing it, as the entire article is focused on denigrating him--the content of the article is entirely negative. Do you consider the Rahib column on Boxing confidential an adequate source for such content? I suppose you miight be saying that it only sounds negative because he is essentially a comic? Any evidence of that? DGG (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It would have been easy to strip out the negative stuff if it was reverted to its original state. The Boxrec reference alone is enough to build an article around.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have undeleted. I've been wrong before. I'll wait a few days before checking and considering afd. Personally, i put this in the realm of internet celebrities known only for their ludicrous actions, where i tend to be somewhat skeptical.. I suppose if he is deliberately a clown, it might not be negative. But I'll let others judge. DGG (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlike most other non entities "Russian Pride" has actually done something. The guy is a failure and a joke of a boxer - but that is the reason he is notable. At least he actually gained a professional lience and has a fight sanctioned by his state commision. He's some fool though!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never accepted the concept that one can be notable through the failure to do anything notable. DGG (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He did something alright - he did so bad that it was notable - e.g. Eric Moussambani and Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We are going in circles, but, basically, i do not consider Eric as notable, and I'd justify it in terms of the current rule structure as NOT TABLOID (Eagle may just have had a notable subsequent career) Notability is intrinsic, and is having significant accomplishments. Being the worst in the world at something is fit stuff for Ripley's, not an encyclopedia. Besides, he's probably the worst boxer in the world, just the worst who became a professional. Just as the others were not the worst athletes in their sport, but merely the worst who managed to get in the Olympics. I undoubtedly would do even worse. The only reason I'm extending the discussion at such length is because to me it shows a more general matter, the idiocy of the 2 RS=N rule. It is one of the things that keep us from being an encyclopedia. If the media think last place is notable, that does not make it notable in the sense of being fit for an encyclopedia sometime this view gives inclusiveness beyond current practice, sometimes the opposite.

(But I was wrong to speedy, since I should have known that it was not uncontroversial, by looking at the article history; if there is reasonable chance that other people here would consider something notable, it's not a speedy A7. If my view of G10 might not be consensus, its not a G10. I did what an admin should not do, which is use his judgement as the standard. My defense is that I had not realized it was not shared.) DGG (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem DGG, I would also argue that he wasnt notable if they guy wasnt so damn entertaining. On a lighter note guess who has a second pro fight lined up! regards--Vintagekits (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: machine translation

I've actually always been against machine translation for the very reason you note (except as an extreme last resort, if necessary.) Translation templates are one thing - I like them and think they're useful in directing readers to another possible source of material for an article. But that's because in the end they rely on human translators to do the final job.

If there were some way to dump the translation into an intermediate spot where it could be looked over, now...but that defeats most of the purpose, I'm afraid. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of some way the wording could be briefly adjusted to explain the need for revision. On the other hand, cleaning up lousy translations is a good way to improve skills with the languages involved. Perhaps there is some way to automatically insert a tag for clean up. DGG (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi DGG, I overheard this discussion when I was leaving a message for Albert. I agree that the point of these tags should not be to encourage people to copy-paste. I do worry that that may happen from time to time. However, I think having links to the translations is helpful both to readers and to editors who know the language, who could take that and use it as a starting point. So I guess that while I think the link should stay as a general matter, revision could be good. I'm definitely open to suggestions and help editing the templates to try to encourage actual translations. I have been in the process of standardizing them into two metatemplates, {{Expand language}} and {{Expand language (non-Latin script)}} so that changes to those two templates affect all the daughter templates for individual languages. (So that way it's much easier obviously to revise them.) Any further thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think most users are intelligent enough to copy edit any very bad mistranslation anyway or at least leave out any sentences or phrases that didn't make sense. I think you underestimate many of our users on here, They want a high quality encyclopedia as much as we do. Even if worse came to worse and they did, readers afterwards can clearly see what has happened and eventually it will be cleaned up. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rowan of the wood

I don't have a problem with the removal of the PROD at all, but just a question - the book is a finalist in a competition, it didn't actually win anything. I did verify that before PRODing it. Is that enough to establish notability? WP:BK says that the book must have won an award. I didn't think the work met any of the other criteria (substantial independent coverage for example). The assertion of notability is obviously grounds for exclusion from WP:SPEEDY but I think the PROD was correct. Anyway, I don't want to get the PROD reinstated or anything, rather just trying to understand the process and making sure I'm not getting these wrong :) §FreeRangeFrog 20:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, DGG. Just to make you aware -- I added a reference for that "award". It appears that there is no significance to the National Best Book Awards. These awards are an online promotional site which charges an entry fee and offers "Media Coverage for Every Entry!". The authors' website also mentions being "nominated for Foreward Magazine's Best Book of the Year award", but that only means entering a book with a $75 fee. It doesn't appear that this book has much real coverage. What do you think? — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I could have told you that two days ago :) Again, I'm not trying to be a deletion fiend and stack on this book... I just want to make that clear. If there's anything worthy of inclusion here (IMO) it has to be a book. And I love fiction and fantasy. But I don't think it's notable enough. If I had been able to salvage it in any way instead of PRODing it, I would have done so. §FreeRangeFrog 21:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. There's no problem with your actions. I think your PROD was the correct move and this now looks like an appropriate candidate for Afd. It is really a matter of whether or not there are any significant reviews. I haven't seen any, but DGG might perhaps have come across some. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

IAR, (in this case the rule against replacing PRODs), I replaced the prod, because i checked WorldCat, which i should have done initially, and found essentially no library holdings & so I dont think there;s much doubt that the article will be deleted. . a sourced assertion of an award should usually go to AfD; runners up and finalists count in some cases--an obvious one is nomination for the Academy Awards--but such cases are the exceptions usually, though,

It is rarely wrong to try a Prod, and it is rarely wrong to remove one. In this case, really holdings and reviews should have been checked before placing the prod-and equally, i should have checked both before removing it.

The only thing that also should have been done before placing the Prod on an article such as this, is check for copyvio. Someone else did, & found a good deal, but it was removable, and yet another person removed it. But articles like this are often entirely copyvio. DGG (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Boston Public

Hi, just got your message regarding Boston Public so I thought I should answer here since most other editors don't bother to see if I have answered on my talk page. Those articles weren't written by me, they were all entered in the same page so I just separated them. I have no actual interest in them (and it a was a long time ago I did this), but if you want I can somehow merge them all into one again when I find time; I'm quite busy doing other articles. Thanks for informing me. Dmarex (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article space tags

Useful comment on Addbot adding orphan tags to articles, that the tag is not useful to the reader. I forget that's what's so irritating about some of the tags, when they do nothing for the reader. Should just be a category, not an article topper. --KP Botany (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting certain articles

No DGG. It is not who you asked about. I was just "bouncing around" the other day (I forget where) and noticed that there were alot of requests pertaining to speedy deletes (Re:the subject matter) on a certain usertalk. But I can't remember who or where I "bounced" ....Nuff said?--Buster7 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused

Johnny Cash Sun Records discography this article includes very detailed content on his recordings with that label. It's getting a lot of delete votes, but the same information is not (and should not) be included in the main Johnny Cash discography article. I'm also confused on Michael Wines. A New York Times bureau chief in high profile postings like Moscow and South Africa, as well as having been a controversial figure in his own right. Why is this getting only delete votes? I've been avoiding AfD and working in article space and came on these through another route, but I don't understand what standards these articles aren't meeting. Can you illuminate me? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I generally do not comment on popular music articles--I have no intention of making more of a fool of myself than unavoidable. As for Wines, its borderline without much better sourcing.DGG (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, I appreciate your taking the time to look into them. I guess I was surprised the a NYT reporter with a long career and international postings wasn't considered notable. That seems pretty high in the field, but I guess they have to establish notability just like everyone else, substantial coverage in independent sources. There is a lot of overlap in Johnny Cash's discography and this individual article, so I guess losing some of the information on his singles with that label isn't so bad. I don't know, I guess I'm just out of touch with the standards, but these seem like things that are worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What gets kept is a matter of chance as much as standards. The actual question, is what is worth arguing for, in terms of how likely the argument is to be accepted. DGG (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV versus NOR part 3

There is a debate going on at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 11#Assyrian Christian Stele → Nestorian Stele where I would invite your comment. It is a continuation of previous discussions, all of which have been somewhat inconclusive. Some editors want to use an invented term (OR) instead of a pejorative term (NPOV). Two policies in conflict. Maybe you can contribute a sane viewpoint. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We use the term the literature uses. I commented there. DGG (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have fixed the articles so they use the common term, but with a note that it is technically incorrect. Think that works. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

PROD for Iterative_Receiver_Design_(book)

Hi there, I removed the template you put and explained my reasons on the talk page. Please reply on the talk page. Thanks! --Marra (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

even for the most distinguished of presses, not all their books are significant. This is the inherent nature of publishing. And electronic engineering is not a particularly small academic field, as compared to, say, linguistics or theology-- there are some fields where 100 holdings in AngloAmerican libraries is a big deal indeed. I considered the 2007 a relatively long period for distribution of a technical book; such academic books usually remain in print of only a few yers atogether. But there is perhaps something else to be checked: whether perhaps there is evidence that the book is widely used as a textbook. Textbooks are not that often reviewed,and relatively elementary textbooks are not all that often held in libraries. Can you show perhaps its the major book at its level in the subject? DGG (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: redirect

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Plastikspork's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reversed burden of proof problem - help needed (Ayn Rand's views on Kant)

I wonder if you are able to comment on the following principle, relevant to the Ayn Rand dispute - see the talk page, and see WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand. The problem is as follows: William Vallicella, who is a recognised Kant scholar, has published something in a blog post about Rand having completely misunderstood Kant. Someone has objected that while Vallicella is a recognised Kant scholar, he has not published on Rand in reliable sources (a blog post not being considered RS), and so the citation cannot be allowed.

This is the reverse burden of proof problem - it is hard to find scientific sources that discuss pseudoscience. In such cases I believe it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources and not peer-reviewed.

The dispute also has affinities with the special pleading problem - that pseudoscientists (or in this case, pseudoacademics) can object that the academics are not expert in the pseudoacademic subject. This is of course an absurd argument, and if allowed unchallenged, would open the floodgate - any advocate of any fringe view could object that the advocates of scientific method simply didn't understand the pseudoscientific 'theory' being advanced.

I appreciate you are not an expert on philosophy (at least I assume not). But this has little to do with philosophy, and everything to do with the need to establish a precedent in Wikipedia policy. Because science is generally silent about pseudoscience, it is difficult to reliably source scientific views on pseudoscience. In such a case, we should be allowed to source views of established scientists or academics or scholars, from any available sources (giving precedence to reliable independent sources where possible).

Principle: "if an established scientist, scholar or academic has made statements about a pseudoscientific or pseudo-academic subject, then whatever the source of that statement, it should be allowed as a reliable source, if no other sources are available." Peter Damian (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1. As a preliminary, how do you know he has not published on this? Perhaps he has put a sentence on this somewhere in his published writings.
2. As another preliminary, how do you know he understand Ayn Rand?
3. As another, how do you know if he might not be totally biased on the subject of her work and motivated by a general dislike?
4. Even more, how well are Kant scholars agreed on the actual meaning of Kant? If everything had total concensus,, nobody would bother writing books about his work.
5. As a very general question, how careful are his blog postings.? Even a scholar of high repute is normally expressing himself a little more loosely there than he does in his actual published works. He might speculate much more freely, because, after all, its conventionally not part of the scholarly record. On the other hand, he might regard them as part of the record. There is no established standard. Of course, there is no single standard for publication either. Most people will give broader judgments at a conference talk than they would in a scholarly article The world is not divided into RS and Non-RS with a sharp dividing line.
6. There are major qualifications you do not include: first, it has to be in his general field of study. His opinion of Ayn Rand's economics is worth no more than that of any other intelligent person.
7. Second, it has to be at least public statement intended to be such, not general conversation.
8. There are too many examples of academics with unusual views where their view is regarded as important, but not really reliable: Pauling on vitamin C (a subject within his very general area of expertise), Rombauts on AIDS, Tesla on quite a number of things.
9. We already have a way of dealing with it: we give this as his informal opinion, qualifying the statement by saying where it is from.
10. Further, the test of the reliability of his view is whether other experts on Kant refer to it. Citation (in the general sense) is the general test of the reliability of anything in any field. The NYT is known to be reliable because every news source in the world quotes it as reliable. Aquinas is a RS for Catholic doctrine, because the entire Catholic world and even non-Catholics think that he is. (this is also how we deal with the people two points above: Rombauts is wrong because essentially every person except himself knowledgeable on the subject thinks he is not correct, and publishes this opinion whenever they discus him.)
11. Generalizing from that, In some fields, some people's blog postings are RSs, because everyone in the field treats them as such. If experts on Kant refer to his blog in their papers as reliable for his views, then it is. We might even say that if all their blogs refer to his as reliable, then it is.
12. One can show a negative: if a reliable encyclopedic source on Kant, such as Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy, does not discuss her in the articles on Kant's philosophy, then one can say exactly that.

Footnote 7 in the Kant aricle is not supportable:

1. It says philosophers but refer to only one,
2. It says philosophical matters when his comments are on Kant,
3. It has to be said in some way to show its informal, as you do in section 7.1 of that article.
4. The lede paragraphs, which are meant to be a consensus view where the details of controversy and sourcing cannot be fully explained,

As written, it's an overgeneralization that has no place in the lede.

I recognize the problem. The general problem is met better by expanding the nature of publications recognized in a much less prescriptive way than your Principle DGG (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Thank you for that very full reply. A detailed reply below. You are quite right about 'some philosophers'. I do have more citations, I will locate them and put them in.

1. Do I know he has not published on this? I have been through most of his published work, and can find nothing. I will check again.
2. How do I know he understands Ayn Rand? Well he explicitly quotes Rand here and since it is entirely clear what she is saying, and since he is very clear about how her statement is a misunderstanding, I think we can accept his word. He says "Anyone who knows anything about Kant knows that this is a travesty of Kant’s actual views. It is either a willful distortion, or a distortion based on ignorance of Kant’s texts."
3. How do I know if he might not be totally biased on the subject of her work and motivated by a general dislike? I don't have any views on his motivations. His argument is perfectly clear and he directly quotes Rand so as a philosopher I find that sufficient. (As it happens, I happen to know he is generally sympathetic to Rand, but that is irrelevant).
4. How well are Kant scholars agreed on the actual meaning of Kant? Again, the misunderstanding shown by Rand is basic and gross, rather than nuanced and subtle, so we are not involved in some difficult exegtical question.
5. How careful are Vallicella's blog postings.? He is a very careful and meticulous writer at all times.
6. "It has to be in his general field of study. " I think I already mentioned that V is an established expert on Kant.
7. "it has to be at least public statement intended to be such, not general conversation. " Correct.
8. "There are too many examples of academics with unusual views where their view is regarded as important, but not really reliable" Agreed. V is a Kant scholar. The question is whether we can allow a statement by a Kant scholar outside the usual RS, concerning an interpretation of Kant by a writer (Rand) the Kant scholar has not published about.
9. "We already have a way of dealing with it: we give this as his informal opinion, qualifying the statement by saying where it is from. " Correct.
10. "Further, the test of the reliability of his view is whether other experts on Kant refer to it." V has been cited on Kant. The question is whether V has been cited on Rand-on-Kant. The problem is that Rand has been so entirely marginalised by established philosophy that it is very difficult to locate sources.
11. "If experts on Kant refer to his blog in their papers as reliable for his views, then it is. " Generally blogs are not referred to in papers. That is the problem.
12. "if a reliable encyclopedic source on Kant, such as Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy, does not discuss her in the articles on Kant's philosophy, then one can say exactly that. " Rand is only mentioned a handful of times in the SEP, all in the context of feminist philosophy. Nowhere is she mentioned with reference to Kant.

Peter Damian (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, your arguments are very relevant to this specific instance, and feel free to use them. But they are not so generally applicable to most cases as to make the proposed wording above a guideline. It is almost never a good idea to change a guideline in such a major way to deal with a specific problem--there are almost always too many unwanted consequences. Fortunately, the current rules are sufficient various that an adequate argument can usually be found somewhere. If really needed, there's common sense=IAR, but there is almost never an actual need for it. The maze of current rules will rarely fail to provide an arguement for anything in either direction :). DGG (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"possibly in violation of a copyright" tag

I see you added this. Is there a procedure to determine if the tag is warranted or not? The editor that started the article (Special:Contributions/Mrhaven715) isn't active on it any more. Xasodfuih (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the tag back in November 08, when the article was in a much more primitive state than the present. The first thing to do is to check the online sources for the article in its present and earlier version and see if any part is copied-- & if so rewrite it. I think you may have already done that. I do not get the impression that it was from a printed source, but without checking them, one cannot be sure. Use your judgment in removing that label The article is in need of further attention, especially sections 5 and 6. DGG (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not pasted from the makersdiet.com site. "The Maker’s Diet" (Penguin 2004) is held at a surprisingly large number of libraries. I'll check it when I'll have the opportunity; I'm not planning on a trip to the library just for this. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I tagged those sections, not feeling like rewriting them. Xasodfuih (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

precarity

look a bit deeper into precarity dgg. the speedy should happen, it's actually the second speedy of the same copy of the same page. --Buridan (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dig deep, indeed!Harrypotter (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

this whole thing needs to be sorted out. At this point, I would suggest a merge discussion. If that fails, AfD. DGG (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

UK Bus Route Articles

I have placed a note here has it has taken me so long to reply to your note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject buses/UK bus route quality drive. I have replied there now, apologies for taking so long, I didn't notice! Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on that p.; what I said was meant that I saw no reason to delete instead of merge, and as a hint that someone would please do the work of removing the prods. I see you disagree, but I don't see why you do. People not noticing is not a reason to delete. I had started placing merge notices on some--you were simultaneously placing redirects. I've stopped, in deference to your greater familiarity. Feel free to redirect the ones I put the merges on. either way, they can now easily be handled after further discussion--which was what I was trying to ensure. DGG (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Incompatible Food Triad

Incompatible Food Triad isn't my article. I just corrected some errors in it, but I don't really care whether it lives or dies. You should bring the notice to the creator of the article, not me. Thanks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been prodded, andwe will see if anyone objects. DGG (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability is permanent

Do you mean to say that any secondary school that ever existed, for any amount of time, in any capacity is notable? Ref: Maslow-Toffler School of Futuristic Education -- Lucas20 (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

so far we have not dealt much with high schools that have ceased, but it is certainly a firmly established general rule for every type of article, that is something was ever notable, it retains that notability. We are not just the encyclopedia of the present-day world. As for high schools, to summarize a long argument: It is almost always possible to find sources to show the notability of a secondary school. As a result, the practice has developed of accepting all articles on high schools whose actual existence can be shown, , and ascribing any difficulty in finding sources to a matter of cultural bias or just work that has not yet been done with the necessary print sources. Probably there are about 10% or some that might not be notable, but this is compensated for by not having to discuss each case--if we did, we'd probably make much more than 10% errors. We have rejected two or three secondary school articles at afd in the last year, when the existence was unverifiable or the nature as a secondary school uncertain. DGG (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Podar_Education_Complex AFD

Would you mind taking another look at this AFD since you probably saw a vandalized version of the article; and the cleaned-up version is not so bad (though it needs work) ? Regards. Abecedare (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

right. I should have checked myself in the first place. DGG (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also look at these two concurrently running AFDS and merge them, if possible ?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukthivicharam
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukthivicharam (2nd nomination)

The article survived for over 2 years, and then was nominated for AFD twice within 2 minutes! Abecedare (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Merged; As for the article, it would help to actually have some verifiable information about the subject, though i recognize the difficulties. DGG (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WP vocab question

Hi DGG. Could you please remind me the term (it's something like, but not exactly, picket fencing, or gate posting) for when an editor or group of editors creates a group of articles with linking within them to make them appear notable and referenced when they are not? I'm drawing a blank. Tx Bongomatic 01:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Walled garden

Obliged. Bongomatic 04:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical ...

Philogo and I both agree to delete that article. He placed a tag that was removed and now I have. There are two articles which suffice for this subject matter (therefore "title" should really point you to the justification sufficeintly). Could you do us a favor and tag that thing for deletion? Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

probably a wise move. I deleted it as 'author's request"-- but if there any objections, I will restore it. DGG (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Above the Limit

So.... In April 2008 diff you called this film article "an acceptable stub", and encouraged those considering deletion to themselves try looking for sources. Well. No one bothered and that stub sat as stub until about 6 hours ago. Do you think it looks any better now? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reviving Hank Janson

Hello. You may well have forgotten this, but I see you deleted an article on Hank Janson back in 2007. Looks like the problems were notability and references. Having searched for an article on Janson and not found one, I am planning to create one. I can use sources like Bestsellers: Popular Fiction Since 1900 by Clive Bloom (Macmillan) and Simon Gray's memoirs. As for notability, he sold five million books in about ten years; essentially a British answer to Micky Spillane. I'm aware "Janson" was a pseudonym, ultimately used by more than one writer, but I can handle that in the same way Wikipedia handles Ellery Queen. If there are problems I've overlooked (or if you honestly don't care), please let me know - thanks.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again There is no reason why you should not write an article on him. there seems to have been some confusion about whom it referred to.: it is listed as being one of the pen names used by Michael Moorcock, which may or may not be correct. The contents at one point was "Hank Janson is the nom de plume of British writer Stephen Daniel Frances, born in Lambeth, London, in 1917." .DGG (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Right: Frances created the pseudonym and established Janson as a best-seller. Other writers used it later. But if we can handle Ellery Queen and Sexton Blake, there must be a way to handle this. Thanks.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

They Are Trying To Delete Ghostly Talk

I have done everything I can and it does not seem to be good enough for some people. Could you please take a look at the Ghostly Talk article and possibly help me on what needs to be added so the article is not deleted. I have added so much to establish notability and it is not good enough for some. Please help. Gtscottl 06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

judging by the present article, if you have found everything there is to find, then they may simply not be notable in the sense Wikipedia uses it. DGG (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

List of works by William Monahan

Would you be willing to comment at the discussion here? We are discussing a revision of this featured list of works, from something like this to this. I would appreciate your input. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I could do it quickly, because i had thought it out & had commented to the same effect over a year ago, in Talk:William Monahan/Archive 1 DGG (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice sought

I'm currently looking over a long article about a work of fiction that was published in epistalary form in a free weekly. The series received no secondary coverage beyond a passing mention in a gossip column about its author and a blog post. I'm looking for guidelines for assessing the notability of articles, particularly ones that might diverge from general notability standards. The article is Dining Late with Claude La Badarian. Look over it if you're interested, but what i'm really after is policy/guidelines that will aid my decision in whether to nominate it for deletion (and please forgive any typos; just got six stitches on one of my fingers).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be more politic to cut it down. it is a substantial work by a moderately important writer. There are no clear rules for fiction-- just check the talk pages for WP:BOOK and WP:FICT--Unless we reach a compromise, I doubt there is any present consensus. Looked at from common sense, for the very most important authors, every work warrants an article, but he's clearly not at that standard. Going down, it goes proportionately: for the general run of important author, the major works warrant articles. for borderline important authors, only their most important works. If he counts as an important author, the question then is whether this is a major work. I personally am not sure we should consider the GNG applicable to fiction. If we do, the question then becomes what counts as a RS for reviews. For some genres, established blogs with positing by well-known critics have sometimes have been considered sufficient. DGG (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. In this case each "epistle" was under 1,000 words and the only review/independent comment was a very positive blog post of under 500 words. This article currently stands at 8 screens. Now the problem becomes, cut it down to what? To what secondary sources say? That would yield about 150 words (a blog liked it, a gossip columnist said Monahan was using the fake name to say mean things about people he didn't like?). Go wellBali ultimate (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. Bali I wasn't able to talk to you on your talk page. Do either of you know where can the bibliography for William Monohan be found on the internet? i looked thoroughly and could find even a trace. ≤Ftphokie (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)≥

If you mean, on Wikipedia , you may be looking for List of works by William MonahanDGG (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of speedys

Hi DGG

Could you please have a look at Jack Cover and Blackwater Worldwide? The former is what I had hoped to be a noncontroversial move of John Higson Cover, Jr. to his most common appellation (usually given without quotes around it. The latter is per a discussion now at Talk:Xe (company)#Requested move. The consensus is that the article should remain under Blackwater for now.

Thanks, Bongomatic 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

the move is easy--for admins, with the current move template for admins, in a case like this it asks if you want to remove the redirect so the move can take place over it, and then automatically does so in a single step. So I just did it. Given this, perhaps we need to revise the statements of procedure, perhaps not involving cluttering up WP:CSD with these. Remember to change the licensing for the picture. DGG (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks . . . So should the procedure just to ask a friendly admin to move the page? (I've done nothing on Jack Cover other than suggest the right place for the article--so I may tag the photo for license issue, but don't have any sources on that). Bongomatic 02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there an issue with the move back to Blackwater? Bongomatic 02:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

some things take thinking, and reading the history. I agree totally with you about where the article ought to go, and I see there was no consensus for the original move. But I think there must also be consensus to reverse the changes in the lede of the article. I do not consider this uncontroversial unless CMBJ and JNelson09 agree. I see JNelson did. Please ask CMBJ. I commented on the article talk p.& I await other comments there.It is much more important that this not become a battleground than that this be done immediately. DGG (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

←Fully agree, and I think the more important question is how it's referred to within the article. I wish there were more complete coverage of the name change. It would be helpful to know if this is really a change in legal entity name (and if so, what entity or entities) or more of a change in branding (e.g., DBAs, etc.). It would also be good to know if this is a future change or one that has already occurred. It is unhelpful that the company's web sites haven't changed at all. Bongomatic 06:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic equidistance

Hi there, I've responded to your comments. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I went back and did it right; apologize for not having read it carefully in the first place DGG (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Consensus or whatever the thread was called on my page

Yeah, I saw your note, but thanks for pinging me anyhow. I had considered a merge, but I wasn't sure how good an idea that was. WP:MERGE doesn't talk about folding content whose notability is suspect into larger (notable) articles; I mean, if the church was important enough to be mentioned in the town article, I would have thought sources would suggest that. I know we often throw content like fictional characters into lists, but that's a bit different and I was hesitant about applying the same standard (arguably the characters are supposed to be important to understanding the work as a whole.) If you feel a redirect from the church to the town is warranted, by all means go ahead. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We usually do mention a town's churches. This is a little more standard than with fictional characters, where standards are very much fuzzier and everything is disputed. Ideally, people would know to add them to the town article, but if they do this, it's appropriate to fix it the way it should have been. I will undelete, and merge/redirect. DGG (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

As you wish. I'll admit on that score I'm a bit less experienced. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing citation in "Google Scholar"

Talk:Google_Scholar#Citation_.28example.29_for_erroneous_additional_search_results Affected are mostly papers that have been published a year ago or less. That's why for renowned scientists, who have a number of frequently cited "old" papers, the affected results appear at the end of the list. 84.163.117.6 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some fuller information either here or by email on the nature and prevalence of the artifact. But you cannot add it to the article without reference to some published discussion. DGG (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious because ubiquious in searches for active researchers with only one or two dozen publications. And it's also true for scientists with mote publications. Take a scientist you know, search for 'name +arxiv', go to the end of the list and you'll find a number of examples. It's as simple and true as "Google gives a list of results that include the search string". And it is not entirely irrelevant, as for the ever more important h and especially g index paers in the lower ranks of a citation list are considered. I've checked with the software "Publish or Perish" that these erroneous search results lead to an overstimation of h and/or g for some researchers. 84.163.117.6 (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

the place to present this information most effectively would probably be the SIGMETRICS mailing list, [email protected] , (http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html) where OR of this sort is often discussed informally. DGG (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Siena College again

An eager new editor, probably a student there, has tried to expand the article. He/she started by cut-and-paste from the college catalog, and I reverted all that; but this is a good-faith person, and I'd appreciate your help there to give 'em a fair shake. Take a look at the article's talk page, and the new kids' as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a somewhat different approach to these articles, which is no doubt why you asked me. Routine descriptive content if not copyvio is in my opinion acceptable & even desirable, though it's nice to have something distinctive and interesting and sourced, in addition. I commented at both places. It will be good to to get this free from the spam and copyvio-- and good to get the ed. with an account free from the vandalism that comes from that ip address. DGG (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I invited you back to this one: fresh eyes, different POV, different phrasing of advice. "I love it when a plan comes together!" --Orange Mike | Talk 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, I commented here mainly to make plain from my side that we are not opposing each other. DGG (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:PROF

Hi DGG! I apologize for deleting a valid article. In general, I am very careful about A7 and only delete clear-cut cases. This seemed like a clear-cut A7, but apparently not (I had not read WP:PROF in the past, never really had to deal with articles about professors). Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

no problem. Fortunately, the author was persistent. DGG (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Sigma Delta

Thanks for the heads-up about Sigma Delta, DGG. For future reference though, was I correct in closing the AfD as speedy keep? Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You should perhaps have explicitly said, no prejudice to a re-nomination by somebody else. But it's like the rule of uncritically deleting contributions by banned editors. I understand why the rule is there, and I of course won't revert if someone does it, but I personally do not look for occasions to do it. DGG (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean DGG. I may have jumped the gun on that closure. But yes, no prejudice towards you (nor anyone else) in renominating it. Thanks again for your messages, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, thanks for joining WikiProject Magazines! We really need more active contributors like you. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All Rights Reserved Literacy Journal Association

Hi David -- thought I'd throw this to you when/if you have a moment. I found the above in the backlog and I'm really not sure what to make of it. While I know some journals have a degree of inherent notability, I'm not finding much that would allow us to expand this article. That said, I'm also not sure if it's meant to be about the journal, because it mentions submissions, or the org that produces the journal. Thoughts? StarM 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

student club; WorldCat shows only two libraries, [13] , though there are probably a few more. Take a look at the earlier versions in the history, which show its nature pretty clearly. I see you shed he ed. involved; if no response, prod will do it. Otherwise, you'll need afd. I should note that some of the people listed as contributors do in fact have other publications as novelists or poets, but I dont think any of them are even borderline actually notable. DGG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Newton in popular culture

This is my current project to save. I saw you are a "keep" at the AfD. Can you help start the fix? Bearian (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton in popular culture well well-written. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Martha Shaw and Carmen Acevedo Butcher

I think there is some sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on here. A brand new account showed up and disputed the tags on the articles. Thanks for trying to help salvage the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have every intention of continuing to keep an eye on the articles, and will deal with anyone editing improperly. It's hardly worth a formal sockpuppet investigation unless it spreads. DGG (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I removed the COI tags from both articles since I could not see anything in them that appeared to be written from a non-neutral standpoint. If you have specific examples of what sentences indicate a conflict please tag them so that they can be changed. Additionally, the articles appear to be well referenced. Do you have specific examples of what in the article does not appear to be properly referenced? (User talk:Udolph0s) —Preceding undated comment was added on 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC).

the place for this is the talk page of the article. But in brief:

1. I suggest you modify your references to show the actual places that have published the articles, not just where they are on the web--for those which have actualy been so published, which is not all of them. You can use the work parameter of cite web for this.
2. COI refers to editing for an organization of which you are an officer. It is possible to make neutral edits, though difficult. The tag if the article were not neutral would have been {{NPOV}}. The tag has been replaced, and if you keep removing it, you are likely to be blocked from editing.

DGG (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Judgment/Judgement

Hey; turns out you were right after all :). In a legal context it is apparently always spelt judgment; sorry about all that. Ironholds (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Pharaoh of the Wizards's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question from power corrupts

• User_talk:Ikip#no_real-world_notability_established Maybe you could help answer? I know you are considered the intellectual giant on these issues. Ikip (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

AMAB may have convinced you, but he did not convince me., i commented there. DGG (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced, I just respect him writing a long answer to someone elses question on my talk page.

I am thankful that you wrote a long answer too. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Open Access Blog

Is not Open Access News. http://openaccessblog.com/ is a well-meaning but not notable blog. Fences and windows (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind...

...my small correction :). Seraphim♥ 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I never mind correction of typos, and I think I've even said that on my user page. "Butt hen" for "but then" will, unfortunately,not be caught by a spellcheck. Thanks for the comment there, too!DGG (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy of Dale Dubin

Perhaps I lack perspective by being immersed in medical school culture, but in my experience his book is a widely known and essential resource, and his story is well known to medical professionals. Please review my hangon justification on the talk page for more information on his notability; I added it about the time the article was deleted, so you may not have seen it. I also must say that I don't appreciate your scolding tone; I created the article in good faith and you should assume such based on my record if nothing else. - Draeco (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I ask that you examine the article once more and reconsider the deletion. I'm willing to discuss it, but if we can't work something out I plan to post it on WP:DRV. - Draeco (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I had actually considered writing an article about the book as well. Regardless, if you recognize his book, then as author he is an academic and thus notable under criteria #4 of WP:ACADEMIC because his methodology is so widely used. Once his notability is established, his record is important as well; omitting it would be like omitting scandal from the Pete Rose or Bernard Madoff articles. - Draeco (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rose is a public figure at a national level in profession that thrives on the widest possible publicity, so criminal activity of his--even something as minor as a short sentence for income tax problems-- is appropriate. (His major scandalous activity as a gambler is of course directly related to his notability). For Madoff, the crime is of such great magnitude as to be of permanent international historical importance, as directly affecting thousands and indirectly millions. It may even possibly be the final blow to a major industry. That you use such examples shows the weakness of the case.

If you want to try an article on him based only on his actual notability as the writer of a widely used textbook, I will not speedy it again, but I will remove all extraneous material (your recourse for that would be the BLP noticeboard). whether I send it to afd will depend on the strength of the sourcing for the textbook. i note that, curiously, its not in his professional speciality. DGG (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dale Dubin

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dale Dubin. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Draeco (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the deletion was upheld, would you Userfy the article and its talk page (since it contained citations as well) under my userpage, perhaps at User:Draeco/Dubin? Thanks. - Draeco (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Apple Worm

Hi DGG. Thanks for your input [14] on the possible deletion of this article. I did search on google first (e.g. [15]), I should have made that clear. As a relative newcomer I'd appreciate a third opinion on the notability discussions going on on that article and on the related self-relocation by the same editor. Would it be appropriate to nominate both at AfD now? Ferkel (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that, so I apologize for saying so in the edit summary. The real choice seems to be between a separate article or a merge, and it's a matter of judgment--I commented at the article. If you really think that not even a merge is appropriate, then the next step would be to nominate it for fd and get a community view. DGG (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: my RfA

Hey DGG - thanks for the feedback in my RfA. I've left you a comment. Happy editing to you. FlyingToaster 04:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Something else to consider

What do you think about IC 5357 and the half dozen or so stubs like it? Are all galaxies notable - there's likely to be "billions and billions" of them per Carl Sagan - even if we can never write more thant what's in that article - which is basically where to look for the place from the Earth? Are all stars- "billions and billions" of them in each galaxy, most likewise without much more than their location to be said for them? Are all asteroids or other balls of ice and rock out there (or down here)? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What do I think? i think we should add the same information for each of the few million others that have been catalogued. Though for convenience, we ought to group them together in articles. The notability=article equation is part of the problem. There are 2 qys: should Wikipedia cover something, and, separately, how should it be arranged. I have, for example, no objection in the least to group episodes together, as long as a reasonable amount of information is included for each, including the actors, timing, and main plot lines from beginning to end. I think we could have coverage on every street in a city; most of them would be in groups. It would be easier to do than to argue about which ones to include.

The real reason to restrict notability is to main the encyclopedia free from promotion and advertising. As this doesn't affect galaxies, we don't have the problem there. the real point is to stop arguing about arrangement and subdivision, and start writing content.

Personally, i think it would be a good idea to build a stub on every possible notable subject, and encourage people to fill them in. Where would I start? every noun and verb in wiktionary, that there is more than one reference for. DGG (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This made me chuckle - we worry about both ends of the scale don't we? "are hamlets notable?" at the one and then "are galaxies notable" at the other. :-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Asteroids

Hi, The Great Asteroid Stub debate has started again here, and input from someone with awareness of the administrative problems of swarms of minimal stubs might be helpful. Alai (who carried the aministrative flag previously) seems inactive of late, so I saw your note in Archive 9, and thought you might join in, or perhaps you could alert some others with useful insight? I believe we can provide the essential information in a table format (with thousands of entries, NB), with links out to serious articles. But I hate to trash their creator's (Captain Panda) efforts by mass deletion, beyond what is really necessary to alleviate the problems these stubs actually create. I would really like to bring this discussion to a satisfactory actionable conclusion this time.

Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Atherton/The Ballet of Change: Piccadilly Circus/Colour Blind 2009

I suspect that the creator of these articles has a serious conflict of interest: mainly because he/she asserts copyright over the film still to Colour Blind, which stongly implies involvement with the film; also becase of the relatedness of the user's contributions (see [16] for example). Can you advise: is this enough to go on? If so, should they go on AfD again? And is there a way of listing the three together? Thanks Hopsyturvy (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

there is no rule against writing of articles with a conflict of interest; and articles are never deleted on that basis alone. See our FAQ (on businesses and other organisations), which is the best explanation. It is reason to closely examine content and check for good sourcing. I made some changes on"colour blind" . I think it will be fairly easy to show the film is notable. Piccadilly Circus was afd'd previously and got no-consensus, so read the afd before going further with that one. DGG (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Kellogg

The crux of your argument is that he had two notable cases. The AT&T case went in the books at some point for whatever the verdict was, so that's fine. However, the Saudi case was thrown out and never went to trial, so it never was a case. It was a potential case that never happened (according ot the sources PhilBridger found initially). That potentiality was also the rationale for the article's creation ("He's gonna be big when this hits!" was basically what the creator said). So, you might want to either reconsider or explain the position you take in the discussion, because I don't see it, and some other folks don't either. MSJapan (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I commented further, but it did not good. there is unfortunately a limit to howe much I can do on lawyers, because there seems to be a serious unconscious prejudice involved. FWIW, I disagree with the current interpretation of one event. If a person does a sufficiently notable accomplishment, & its documented, he is notable. The rule should be used only for something picked up by tabloids but of no actual importance, and for involvement as a bystander or victim. DGG (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD

I split off your added contradiction in WP:Wikipuffery, and I'm letting you know that someone else has nominated the resulting fork for deletion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiAntipuffery. THF (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of M.I.High Characters You removed the PROD tag. Ikip (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

blame the guy who nominated it without notifying me. DGG (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've responded to your comment regarding this matter. _TalkIslander 16:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

SBS Swiss Business School

Altough it claims to be a college, it is not accredited in Switzerland by the OAQ( oaq.ch). IACBE accrediation doesn't mean anything since it is not recognized by the CHEA (www.chea.org). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_accreditation_associations_of_higher_learning The information about this college on Wikipedia is misleading and self-promotional. 77.58.151.156 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

we include many unaccredited colleges if they are at all notable. Probably we should be sure that we do, for they too are part, though an unpleasant part, of the world, and people need reliable information on them. I will double-check the neutrality of the article, and keep a further eye on it. The best way of showing the nature of the accreditation would be for you to write articles on the "International Assembly of Collegiate Business Education" -- and the " Swiss Quality Certificate for Adult Education Institutions" and other institutions which they also cite--we cn then link to them.. What is the status of "Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs"? DGG (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One needs to distinguish between being accredited or being member of an association such as the "Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs" (ACBSP). A "member" is an institution that has paid annual fees (see: http://www.acbsp.org/index.php?mo=st&op=ld&sid=s1_020acc&stpg=25) but is not accredited. The more prestigious AACSB states following: Membership does not confer AACSB accreditation and should not be interpreted as achieving accreditation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.151.156 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I will check the wording, but the best way of showing it is to actually write the articles on the associations. Why not do so,since you have the information? DGG (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Hey DGG, there is a guy (User:NFLOWNAGE) traipsing around making unconstructive edits all around. I put a warning on his talk page after the first one, he has made about 5 more (all have been reverted by others), but they haven't warned him or anything. What should happen here? SMSpivey (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

he appears to have stopped for now. I would have left a level 3 warning to start with, but what you did was fine. If it continues, ask at WP:AIV as rapidly as possible. DGG (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

DCEETA deletion

thanks again for your comments, what troubles me, (given that i subscribe to the "The advanced human aircraft hypothesis" (Ufology), is that avowed military users are following a similar modus operandi, in this case. (then they call it a personal attack.) this is more of an ad hoc coverup, than a conspiracy.

i suppose i shouldn't wave the red flag of area 58 before them, the problem is, it's in the NYTimes. then the tenditious cutting down 'not authoritative', 'trivial' begins. the longwinded changing of arguments, and not giving an inch, dosn't strike me as good faith either. here we have articles about museums yet to be built, Cold War Museum, civil war forts that no longer exist, Fort Corcoran, but no Area 58. (all in the same neighborhood.) and the problem being, that if i can find it so can any enemy researcher, so it ends up only obscuring the government program from public oversight.

the implication for wiki is that subcultures, with group think, can impose non wiki rules upon specialized parts of wiki, withholding public information. the dissenters are shouted down with specious arguments:

All the quotes say is that this facility is "alleged to be" a satellite downlink station. Even if you choose to ignore the blatant weasel words, that's hardly a big deal, and notability isn't inherited from any notable data which goes through the place. The other citations appear to only mention the site in passing while discussing data which has passed through it

btw, this statement is false.

i've written worse articles, and will continue. how long will it take before they delete it from my userpage? well i will go back to my other articles, where more polite, rational editing prevails. Dogue (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some good people at the Military wikiproject. Go there specifically & ask for help fixing it. DGG (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

i'm sure there are, as i'm sure all the delete voters are, it's just their conduct that is not so good on this occasion. (the quote above) the russian source, and the inside defense source use caveats, however, the NYTimes, (Bamford), the Intelligence Community book, and the Deep black book do not. authoritative, if they mean that you need a judicial order or whistle blower, no, but that's a higher standard than merely confirmation, by sources with editors subject to lawsuit. trivia, well the media attention during y2k was not trivial, the NYTimes article is about the NRO, and this installation is several paragraphs, the Intel Comm book has a page or two, and there is a chapter in Deep Black. i wish they wouldn't make statements that are factually incorrect. Tom Star said it was a hoax, and then looked like a hoax, then notable but not progressing. ALR went to mediation, and ignored the mediation suggestions. I wrote the thing twice; i doubt that any article would be acceptable. Now as to speculating about motivation: either it's a mindset, and commanding the writing of others, and deleting when frustrated with the conduct of others, or an active censorship to maintain secrecy through obscurity effort; it dosn't really matter since the outcome is the same. teleology not deontology. verifiable material is supressed from wiki. this philosophical conflict between inclusionist and exclusionist, really has no end. i conclude that i don't need the heartburn here. i can tilt at windmills closer to home in the flesh. i was serious when i said to ALR that i can provide the public protests similar to those at Menwith Hill, and Pine Gap in order to provide notability. Dogue (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

covert installations are always a problem here, as are elite organizations that shun publicity, secret fraternities, businesses that don't deal much with the public, people who work in not very visible capacities, and such like. There have been a number of articles on such that are probably notable, but can not be verified; there have also been many articles on such that are not notable, or in some cases even non-existent, and can not be verified for that reason. It can be genuinely hard to tell. As for rewriting, persistence is the key--my advice generally i to wait for one or two more sources; many things do work the third or 4th time Like many people here, I have my own list of articles that ought to be able to stay, but haven't been able to, and a similar list of ones that ought to go, and are unaccountably kept. Any group working the way we do is going to be inconsistent. Your plan to work on other things in the meanwhile is the rational one.DGG (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

i note that ALR is doing his magic over at Menwith Hill. and the fact that this group was fast deleted is troubling (to me). Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases Dogue (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

many things are deleted that ought to be kept, and many kept that ought to be deleted. Just concentrate on getting the article sound enough to stand. It's the only way to show you were right. DGG (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

well i don't know what you mean by sound enough. when they delete it as a hoax, when it isn't; when they delete it as unauthoritative, and unencyclopedic when it is, i can only reach the conclusion that no article however good would be allowed to stay. i shouldn't invoke the wrath of god: how about the wrath of Socrates upon the Sophists, or the revenge of Hypatia upon the christians? The sophomoric popularity contest that wikipedia has become, is not the only way to prove rightness. (i say that with regret, not anger, knowing your efforts in this regard). i can become Lindis Percy in meat-space, and i will give due credit to ALR and TomStar for their part in the radicalization process. Dogue (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Germans DRV

Hi DGG, Would you be good enough to review my comment (and the rest of) the DRV for Good Germans. The whole situation is one of the crazier things I've run into, and I trust you to give it a fair hearing. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

yes. an editor first mistakenly converted it to Wiktionary format and now complains it was transwikified. The admin should ideally have spotted it, but I am not sure i would have. DGG (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful (as usual) input in the DRV discussion, DGG. As long as the outcome doesn't bar re-creation of the article, I'll be happy. Cgingold (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

PS - Thanks also for your remarks re adminship on my talk page -- much appreciated. I'll respond there later -- but I am really curious to know how you even spotted that section in the first place, seeing as it's pretty well hidden, nowhere near the bottom of the page. In fact, I had to look in the edit history to figure out why I had one of those orange "new messages" banners! Cgingold (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

seeing your work at DelRev, I checked if you were an admin, & seeing you were not, I considered you might be a good candidate. Before I go ahead with something like that, I read the talk p. history to see if there will be problems. For example, you might have consistently said no to other nominations. BTW, If you click on the "last change" in the banner, you get the history open to the latest change.) DGG (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

True enough - but I've gotten in the habit of clicking on the "my talk" link at the top of the page. Anyway, thanks for the bit of explanation, now I don't have to puzzle over it. :) Cgingold (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

School Health for 1 Billion Children

Not sure what to do with this one. You tagged it, it was speedied for A7, it was tagged again for G12, I declined that speedy because the first paragraph doesn't seem to be copyvio. The linkfarm in the EL looks like a conceivably interesting list of links, but this really isn't my area and I don't know what we want to do with this article. A7 it again? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• I deleted it again via A7. I did a search & can find no information for their even existence besides their own web site. As for those links, if the organiz. were notable, and they were actual sponsors, we'd link to them in the text. I will warn the editor involved. DGG (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much; what kind of search should I do for this, google.com, or something more specialized? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

for something like this, the first place is Google News Archive, which gave 0. I then continued on google, which gave nothing 3rd party and useful. If one wanted to go further I would use Lexis, but with such a low result it is almost certain they are not yet notable. DGG (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lu

Hi, I don't think you fully signed your post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lu. regards, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

that was caused by pressing the "~" key 5 times instead of 4, in my enthusiasm. I fixed it, but you or anyone else can just correct it or any other formatting errors I might make. DGG (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hendrik de Wit

DGG, I have created an article on Hendrik de Wit, based on an article in the Dutch WP (but expanded, referenced, and corrected). As I have a potential (if minor) COI (explained on the article's talk page), I'd appreciate if you could do a quick check to see if all is OK. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mentioned you on AN.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_administrative_assistance_with_whitelist_request_for_Lyrikline.org_page_for_Chirikure_Chirikure The copyright bugaboo is persistent. --Abd (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

commented there. DGG (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy, did you! Thanks. Beetstra, who had unintentionally derailed the process, made up for it by realizing he'd made a mistake by linking the specific whitelisting to the global and site-total whitelisting issue. I.e., he wanted to deal with the whole site, not a pile of individual whitelisting requests. Understandable. Perhaps there was a method to my madness.

However, a journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. If I couldn't get one poet link whitelisted, how likely would it be that I could succeed in a site-wide whitelisting. Now, the existing situation may still require some attention here. He whitelisted the English language pages, and I'm not sure that will be sufficient. However, one step at a time! He did, in the end, much more than I'd asked for, and we can clean up details later.

Plus I think I now have a suggested process that will avoid most contention over whitelisting caused by blacklisting admins circling the wagons and routinely confirming their original actions by denying whitelisting requests based on propriety of blacklisting, which is a totally different issue than single-link whitelistings. Because only blacklisters and antispam volunteers routinely watch the blacklist/whitelist pages, however, the issues get linked, quite naturally. It is as if DRV consisted only of a panel of admins who had speedy-deleted articles!

I made almost-specific proposals along these lines on my Talk in response to comment from Beetstra announcing his whitelisting.

Beetstra, while becoming difficult at times, has overall been very helpful, he seems to have recognized that I'm not out to wreck the place, that I'm simply standing up to represent the other side of the equation, that little detail: in the end, it's about content, not about killing all the spam. I believe that we can do both, efficiently, making the anti-spam volunteer's job easier and more efficient. It involves separating the whitelisting process from blacklisting, and establishing a guideline that active blacklist admins (and active volunteers) abstain from denying requests for whitelisting. No harm of one of them accepts such a request, because they are, from my experience, quite unlikely to do so abusively. It's just the denials that sometimes are a problem. It's a product of battlefield mentality that is natural, as you know, when dealing with mountains of spam. WP:WikiProject Spam actually suggests that WP:AGF be set aside in dealing with spam, and I'd say, sure, but that's not complete. Stop spam, intercept it, suspending AGF, on "probable cause." Arrest the linkspam (i.e, blacklist). But then don't have the same people making content decisions on the same links. Use the tools or don't. Don't do both. Normally we talk about, with admin abuse (and I'm making no accusations of impropriety in saying this, admins are following existing practice, usually) involvement in an article and then use of tools. Here there is the use of tools, to protect the project, then content involvement. I.e., an admin then asserts a decline, typically, based on, not clear content criteria, but defense of the original blacklisting. Normally, with content, any editor may assert content that is reasonable (not necessarily acceptable) by making the edit, and it's a problem only if there is clear violation, like vandalism or BLP violation or clear copyvio, there are no rules requiring that all edits be "acceptable." But when it comes to reviewing whitelist requests, suddenly, extremely stringent requirements are set up, and the proposed link must be "necessary." Why? The whitelist doesn't make more work for the linkspam volunteers, as long as there are not a torrent of such, and if the linkspam volunteers pay practically no attention to the whitelist, they simply have less distraction. If an inappropriate link is whitelisted because some spammer pulled the wool over the eyes of a user who closed, it is very, very easy to delete the whitelist regex.

The whitelist page could be mostly managed by non-admin users, who would review whitelist requests, and would routinely approve those which are reasonable edit proposals on the face. Any autoconfirmed user who wants to add a link to a blacklisted site would simply propose it there, perhaps with a link to an article talk page notice about the proposed edit. If an IP or site-owner, etc., wants to ask for a link, fine. On the whitelist talk page. So by the time a whitelist link is approved, there are at least two (and in the presence of contention, three at a minimum) autoconfirmed editors in favor of allowing it. And then implementation can be done by any admin who knows regex, or the blacklist volunteers could be requested to review approvals and add them en masse. (for many links, the regex is pretty simple, and I'm sure there are lots of regular editors who know regex and who would consult.) As I see it, the page could recommend delisting or total-site whitelisting (with global blacklisting), but that request, if it is approved on the whitelist page by other than an acting admin, might go to the blacklist page for review regarding risk of continued linkspam. Before a judge releases the prisoner, the judge might ask the police if there seems to be some immediate and continued danger from the prisoner. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is a possible pool of volunteers who might watch a whitelisting page if it gives them some responsibility, some level of authority to help others make edits. The risk of damage from a bad decision is small, compared to the torrent of linkspam that exists. If there isn't enough help, a backlog would develop, but, now, it wouldn't be the fault of the blacklist volunteers! It would be up to the community to fix it, or not. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I look at it from another aspect: the same admins who tend to overdelete spam also tend to overdelete articles. You cannot get a set of rules that will limit the damage, without a very elaborate set of controls. There is great concern at the moment about the existing procedural overhead. The best approach I think is to gently adjust the rules, and attempt to persuade the people. There is no possible rule that will replace general watchfulness and a willingness to speak up. All questionable admin actions should be challenged, and I am not speaking of this issue only. Even people too stubborn to back down after making a mistake on a specific issue can still learn eventually. DGG (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Congratulations on your chess set post, you got it right. I know you are an Admin, but with respect, most people that are Hall Monitors and Admins are more likely to be Essjay types than say a professional person with a real job. Anyway, I will try to return the favour for you some day. Happy editing and my best regards. Green Squares (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but there's a very wide variety between admins, in both quality and background, and I'm not sure how well the two correlate. Some of the admins who tend to support me the most frequently are undergraduates or (I think) high school students. One tends to notice the nastier people more, because nastiness is prominent. I think the general prevalence of it is overrated, and that much of it is due to a few individuals. And they aren't all of them admins,either. DGG (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The hall monitor that deleted the articles states that they can be recreated, but he is refusing to it, do you have the sysop tools to put the incorrectly deleted articles back, or the authority to force the hall monitor to put them back? Green Squares (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the admins who tend to support me the most frequently are undergraduates or (I think) high school students. LOL, a few of us are older :) StarM 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, as of my final reading, there is certainly enough support for an "Overturn" yet I do not see the articles going back up?! Thanks Green Squares (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hemispherectomy Foundation

Hi DGG- I'm not here to complain, just want to explain my actions. On Hemispherectomy Foundation I removed the proposed deletion tag, based on the fact that I feel it is just as notable as Vitamin C Foundation or Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which have been hanging around for a while and are lacking in quality. I did add another reference source to Hemispherectomy Foundation and do intend to expand it as time allows. Acceptable? Thanks, Paxsimius (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

those other two are dubious as well in their present state & I've marked them. The articles (all 3 or them, actually) must have substantial coverage in 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases, or material based on press releases) to show their importance . Andsome financial data helps also. I'll check back eventually. DGG (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretzel

This article existed with a timeline as is reproduced on the talk page. This has been converted to plain text consistent with standard encyclopedia formatting. One editor, and I tend to agree, thinks the timeline was a more useful and accesible format for the information. What do you think? Is there a way to have the cake and eat it too? Have you had any experiences with timelines in the past? Clearly it's not standard formatting, but they can be useful and encyclopedic devices me thinks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

commented there. DGG (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WT:Rfa#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NNBot II

It's a proposal for a CSD noticeboard; debate is over what to use it for. (Not watchlisting because you're way too popular and you'd fill up my watchlist, but feel free to respond on my talk page or elsewhere :) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

More MS

This user is a self-proclaimed sock of his. Here are the socks contributions [[17]]. I put this in AN/I but since you're clued in.... Thanks Bali ultimate (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)