User talk:DGG/Archive 44 Sep. 2010

Jan10, Feb10, Mar10, Apr10 , May10 , Jun10, Jul10, Aug10, Sep10, Oct10, Nov10, Dec10

Your advice requested again

I hope you don't mind my asking you for advice again, but I look up to you as among the wisest preservationists on Wikipedia. I am trying to do something that is perhaps rather rash, but because I am appalled by the enormous number of articles flagged for deletion. I have recommended to people to make a new kind of AfD !vote Merge as decided by centralized discussion as a sort of experiment that may establish a new precedence. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers centralized discussion for more details. Thanks for reading this. —CodeHydro 14:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, badly worded boldface... I simply intended to point out that "decide by centralized discussion" (without merge) could be an option, but was sloppy in implementing it. I meant merge as in merge the discussion... sigh... —CodeHydro 14:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I'm going to withdraw my move to centralize the discussion. Instead, I'd shift my effort to getting a postpone of some of the AfDs with my new proposed policy WP:AFDPP. —CodeHydro 18:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I like this better. The problem of centralizing discussions is that if too many get treated this way, the technique loses its effectiveness. But a decisions to temporarily close discussion on an AfD and relist at a fixed period is something I have often thought would help the situation more than just a close as no-consensus or an immediate relist. However, I have changed the wording slightly t0o avoid confusion with other processes. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Too bad it's probably too late to use this for the Transformer articles... though I'm wondering if I should post "Postpone as per proposed WP:AFDPP." anyway in the open AfDs. Yet, I'm tempted to hold off on posting it there to buy the proposal time for response before the deleters pounce on it. Also, I added a nutshell template to the proposal... do you think the nutshell is helpful or not? Or should I force people to read the whole essay as a sort of filter against the quick draws. —CodeHydro 20:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You will have the same effect if you suggest closing a non-consensus with a promise to post again in x days. Yes, do post a nutshell--in fact, in my opinion, even the bare template is clear enough without any other explanation. The virtue is obvious, to ensure orderly procedure & thatthings aren't forgotten. The only problem might be overuse. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Arg, unfortunately I am unable to make such a promise due to prior commitments at later dates. I've already shirked a few responsibilities to create the postpone policy... I just finished writing a tentative guideline for an actual policy. Would you mind taking a look at WP:AFDPP#Tentative policy? I'm concerned it may step on the toes of existing wikipolicies and you're far more experienced than I am in that area. (as a note, I finally modified the essay to not use the term deletion review so loosely) —CodeHydro 18:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you would do much better proposing it as a general option only, removing all or almost all of the sections on how to handle groups of articles. The proper way to deal with those is a more difficult question than simply introducing an option Though there are many possibilities, I think the present way is the worst, a prescription for chaos. Chaos is a sign of immaturity and lack of responsibility,--this may have been in keeping with Wikipedia 6 or 8 years ago, but should not be perpetuated. Centralized discussions at projects tend to perpetuate cliques; general policy discussions on the entire type of articles are subject sometimes to rushed decisions, and sometimes to stubborn blocking of any decision whatsoever. But as a general rule proposal for change of process based on a particular article problem tend to lead to poor solutions, or to a refusal to consider the solution. A general formulation of this is, Hard cases make bad law. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I see now that I overcompensated for your earlier concern that it may be overused by restricting options so much that postponement would go unused in times it's needed. Still, after seeing the comment "Seems redundant" on the talk page, I'm thinking that if I don't list the options that too many people simply won't imagine them at all. But on the other hand, you're right that having options also encourages people to stop trying to think outside the box... "Ay, there's the rub!" (Hamlet ref) I'll have to rewrite the policy to be less restricting later... I really shouldn't have tried to push this until I could be less busy. —CodeHydro 12:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Keli Lane

Hi DGG. I note the outcome of the deletion discussion concerning the Keli Lane article. Would you be able to give me a copy of the deleted text, so that an article may be re-created should she achieve greater notability after her murder trial? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I just emailed it to you. (& I assume by after the trial, you mean after the trial, if she is found guilty). If you have any difficulty in such a case getting the restored article past speedy, let me know. I tried to close in such a way as to make clear it would not then be subject to G4, but who can tell what someone might do. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I have it. Of course, I would only consider resubmitting after a guilty verdict. It is a very interesting case by the way. No body, just lots of circumstantial evidence! Regards, WWGB (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikiconference

Hi DGG, just wanted to let you know that I very much enjoyed working with you on the Pending Changes panel at the wikiconference. It was a pleasure to see you again. :-) Risker (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Service Officer

Dear DGG, I have been asked to mediate a case of edit warring in Foreign Service Officer and determined a proper solution based on references. However, User:Kmhseo continues and promises to continue to revert to his versions, for which he does not provide references. I am therefore requesting a block of this user. Please investigate and take whatever action is best, as I am out of powers. Kbrose (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I had an idea how to handle it, & I commented accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. Saw your comment, but this user is set to see only his version, which I think is not the intent and structure of the articles. Kbrose (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sardar Atta ullah Mengal

Tracked him down to be the existing Ataullah Mengal!

Was trying to tidy up the stub, wanted to link "Baloch" or "Baloch nationalist movement" appropriately, found my way to Balochistan, spotted a massive navbox for "Baloch nationalism", and there among the names in "Key figures" I found him - and his article starts off "Sardar Ataullah Khan Mengal (Urdu: سردار عطااللہ خان مینگل), popularly known as Sardar Ataullah Mengal ..". Actually, that makes one wonder whether the article is at the right title or not .... no, not going there today. Satisfying to have sorted him out! Just shows how useful it is to make redirects from every plausible mis-spelling of a name, to avoid this sort of duplication: there are actually a bundle of redirects, but none of them splitting "ataullah" into two words.

Just off on a wikibreak: resolving not to take laptop even though staying in place with wifi. PamD (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Great rescue--I was not satisfied with the way I left the article, because there should have been more information findable. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JD Caselaw

Hi DGG,

This is Andrew Gradman, editing from an IP because I've been using WikiBreak Enforcer to try to squeeze out a little scholastic productivity. Sadly, I'm back, because I learned that I am currently the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation, over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JD Caselaw.

There's no question that I own both accounts, nor are people questioning that I use JD_Caselaw account for the legitimate purpose of making edits that are not associated with my real-life name. However, the investigators have (correctly) identified an occasion when I really did use the JD_Caselaw account to engage in sockpuppetry. It was in May 2009, during my first month on Wikipedia. My response is that, yes, I behaved scurrilously, but it was a long time ago and it was a mistake. And that's where the question stands: Given that I behaved really scurrilously, once a long time ago, can I be trusted now?

I've issued this solicitation to about a half-dozen editors who know me quite well. You and I, however, are mostly strangers. I'm contacting you because I trust your opinions. That sounds trite and corny, but I have always respected your opinions ever since I attended your presentation last year for librarians at the NYC meetup. I even found a historical wikipedia post where I pretty much told you, in so many words, "I respect your opinion": [1], which refers to my vote at [2].

Usually, I hesitate to directly ask someone to "please express an opinion in the discussion". But I have to ask you directly, in so many words, because you're the editor whose answer will come closest to the right answer. If the sockpuppet investigation does end in a community sanction against me, I would want to hear it from you.

Thanks.

-user:Agradman, forced by WikiBreak Enforcer to edit as 128.59.179.250 (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about Speed Deletion without warning

Why would someone delete the content from a page without warning ?

How does it comes that new products and innovations are not worth to be mentioned and the big companies Apple, Sony, Nintento are discussed in great details with all their products. Do you have to be rich and famous to earn the privilege to be mentioned on WIKI ?

I always thought the idea behind WIKI was to provide everyone an Encyclopaedia to research his topics of interest ?

Apparently that seems not to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retrogaming (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is about Multiple Classic Computer. I think you received very adequate warnings, since I was the third admin to delete it. It was deleted on July 29 by one admin , and on Aug 24 by another; I deleted it a third time earlier today, as essentially promotional. You wrote in the edit summary that you had completely rewritten it, but you hadn't; it was almost identical except without the pictures. Almost all the refs were to your own web page or a blog site, and the article was an overdetailed description of technical features. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , not an advertising medium. I've deleted articles on even major products from major companies that were written as advertising, rather than information--and so have every one of the 100s of admin here who patrol articles listed for speedy deletion. I've blocked representatives of major companies from contributing , if all they do is insert such articles. I've once or twice even explained things directly to the Senior VPs of such companies.

I and other admins routinely protect repeatedly-created consistently deleted articles from re-creation. I deliberately did not do so here, nor did I block you, because of the possibility that the product will become notable, and that you will then be able to write an non-advertising article about it--all it takes is a few references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Product reviews do very well; mere mentions do not. At that point, give a brief description of the functionality and tell us what the reviews say about the product. But please see WP:COI for additional information; it will be much better if you wait for someone who knows of the article but is not involved with producing it to write that article. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Police

A challenge? Okay. Under work now. Amazingly difficult to find stuff on a Nigerian director... but I'm making headway. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Schneerson AfD

I apologize for the response given to explain my vote on the AfD page. Theoretically, it would have been better if your "reset" (an excellent idea that should be invoked early and often!) had been restricted to a vote & explanation, instead of arguing against others' vote. Vote, explain, and leave the rest up to the consensus!Edstat (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not see I was arguing about others' votes: I was trying to facilitate things by suggesting directions to look which might resolve the issue. Nor did I vote. Saying I had no opinion when relisting is not a vote. I may yet vote, depending on what gets said. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I must have not been clear. I was complimenting you on doing the reset, but apologizing that Yehoishophot_Oliver decided to debate my vote. I was making the point that your reset would be best adhered to by voting (and explaining the vote), but not arguing against other's vote, as some did, and continues to do. Sorry for being unclear!Edstat (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ah. My apologies; I admit I was a little puzzled, but now it certainly makes sense. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Thanks for removing the BLP violating edit summaries at The Invention of the Jewish People. There are a couple of more that were the topic of my original WP:BLPN notice, one by Malik calling a living person 'part of the extremist lunatic fringe', and on be Zero, calling him a 'fanatic'. It would be good if you could remove those, too. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I got them all now. If not, tell me the revision ID. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

those were the ones. I think you got them all now - many thanks. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there - in the course of doing some research I ran across another transgression, even worse than the previous ones, where the same person is labeled a 'crackpot', by the same editor. It would be good if you could REVDEL this edit summary as well. HupHollandHup (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

done. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! HupHollandHup (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Lewis Pulsipher

Hey there. Lewis Pulsipher wrote an article about himself, and the article was put up for speedy deletion. If there's anything you can do to salvage this one, please do! :) BOZ (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Claritas

• FYI. There's probably a lot more damage done than what's been uncovered so far. We'll find out more over the next day or two, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Declined Copyvio CSD of Timothy Munro Roberts

Hey DGG, I noticed you declined the Copyvio CSD on the above mentioned article and just had a couple questions as my copyright knowledge is limited. Is there a limitation on copyrights when dealing with a site such as flickr and where does plagiarism fall into the mix? The text copy and pasted was from http://www.flickr.com/people/tampatroberts/ in the family background section near the bottom of the page. Thank you for any answer which can help me make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 17:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hmm... from a cursory glance, the text is indeed verbatim at the bottom of the Flickr page, but that text is the same as the one that was added to Timothy Roberts in September 2008, also in pretty much one single chunk devoid of wikitext. I've flagged it for further review at WP:CP.

To learn a bit more on copyvio and plagiarism, you may want to start with this editorial written for the milhist wikiproject's newsletter by our resident copyright guru, as a starting point. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So it is; it's my error--I missed it. Flicker copyright belongs to the person who uploaded the information. They can put a cc license on it, and many people do. There is no copyright notice on this page, and therefore the copyright belongs to the person who posted it. (The copyright notice by Yahoo at the bottom refers only to the part they produced--the frame, etc.) I notice the person's photos do have a copyright tag--and it says all rights reserved. This is in fact an unquestionable copyvio, and I am about to speedy delete it. If the article was written by the subject, he can give us permission according to WP:DCM. I see no need for further review--I would have speedied in the first place had I looked more carefully. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It could possibly have been a reverse vio of the original article, but as a strong proponent of the precautionary principle in copyvio matters I most certainly don't object to that :) MLauba ^(Talk) 18:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies and the link, since you 2 are already on this William (Monty) Munro Roberts III seems to have also used most of the aforementioned text.- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 18:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the violating text, I hope that was the best thing in this situation. Once again thank you for your help - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A comment about reversevio: I have almost never seen a case where someone write his bio for Wikipedia first, and then puts it on his website, and in apply Speedy G12 I pay no attention to this remote possibility--if it's a bona fide case, we'll hear from the person. I have a few times encountered material apparently written simultaneously for a web site and a Wikipedia posting, or where someone claims this. Again, I consider it a remote possibility, and if someone claims it as was in a position to do it, they'll say so. In both these cases, the person generally understands about putting a CC-3.0 tag on the website page, which solves the copyright problem. Of course, in both cases, the article is very likely to be highly promotional and a probably G11. The sort of reverse copyvio we do see often is where a bio or other content at Wikipedia is then used by some other web site. Sites trying to provide bio info on everybody tend to do this quite a lot, as do sites that try to become visible in google by showing up for a great range of possible searches by using content from Wikipedia however irrelevant to their actual mission. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Article you participated in up for deletion again

• I am contacting everyone who participated in the previously AFD that Megatron (Beast Era) is up for deletion again. The AFD is at [3] Dream Focus 00:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your vandalism of Larkin 25 article

Why have you vandalised the Larkin 25 article and taken it on yourself to make such changes without consulting first? Your edits are unhelpful and resented as this article took a lot of research and your edits are unwarranted. I shall put this to the helpdesk as you have overstepped the mark and made false sllegations about 'point of view of fan' on this UK-based article. You should have put any radical edits to the discussion page first and I am livid that you have acted out of hand in this fashion.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

you do not own the article. I consider myself a neutral editor on this topic. I performed the normal sort of editing to decrease overemphasis, repetition and promotionalism; I very frequently perform such edits on all sorts of subjects. My edited version probably reduces the fan emphasis sufficiently that I can remove the tag if you do not reinsert the material. If you do reinsert the material, of course, I shall continue to maintain the tag, and ask for another opinion if you remove it again. I also intend to restore the changes, but one at a time, to permit discussion, starting with removing duplication,w hich was the worst of the problems and the most indicative of promotionalism. I note that numerous other people have made the same complaints about your work on this subject. I remind you that most editors here would get very upset to hear edits characterised as vandalism--a characterisation you seem to have used of prior attempts before to help your articles. But myself, I don't get upset at this; I have enough experience here to realize that your resort to such language indicates the extreme weakness of the case. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomas J. (Tom) Kuber

Would you consider moving this? I don't believe it conforms to naming conventions. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

done DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On a completely different note, there's an editor who is striking out comments I've made in an AFD with the bogus claim that IP editors are not allowed to participate in AFDs and such, and is complaining about it on my talk page. Would you care to chime in and set the record straight? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I shall, but it is inevitable that people will assume things like this--I know you've heard it before. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Inka 888 misusing TWINKLE" on ANI

Per your post that further misuse by Inka 888 should result in the removal of TWINKLE, I have posted some diffs on the further misuse of TWINKLE by the user on the ANI thread. Fastily also agrees that TWINKLE should be removed. If you want to do the honors, that's fine or you could ask another admin if you wish. I just don't want to see anymore articles or talk pages messed up by this user who isn't open to help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Even with Inka 888 blacklisted, he has somehow gotten TWINKLE back. Requesting it be forcefully removed via his monobook page and that page protected. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It takes a while for the blacklist to become effective. He has no css or js pages; he apparently added it as a gadget and only the user has access to that page. What I shall have to do is block him. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Had hoped it wouldn't come to that, but I guess we have no choice. I really think the user would be a good editor if the just slowed down and was opened to learning the ropes, but they seem so gung ho about getting each and every access possible, I just don't see any getting through to them but a block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

John_M._Veitch_(professor)

Notable? Bearian (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

not enough publications , & as we know, USanFr. is not a research university. I added what I could find, and revised the prod to indicate there are 3rd party refs DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD

Hi David, thanks for the message and the email. I read the email first, and in truth I had no idea what I was supposed to have done until the posting on my talk page clarified it. I think it's just a misunderstanding, not malice. A user alerted me to the recreation of Chelsea kate isaacs, an article that had previously been deleted in that form and twice as Chelsea Kate Isaacs. I felt that it met the criteria again, (and it had five issues tags) and deleted. What I failed to do, and for this I apologise, was to check the edit history. I did not realise that the article had been tagged for CSD and declined. There was no intention to reverse your decision, and I'm sorry to have given the impression of doing so. Please accept that this was incompetence rather than arrogance, sorry again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on, I never thought it was malice. (And I sometimes don't check the history myself every single time, and I have missed things like that too.) I agree the article could reasonably have been speedied. Checking back on what looks like persistent re-creation, I'm not as inclined as I was to help out an article on the subject. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

5pm (Software)

Hi there, I am looking for help with Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/5pm and I was advised by Chzz that you might be able to help me. Thanks for your time, Disarea (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

moved to mainspace, reworded a little--comments on your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Delete (Zeta Chi Delaware Valley College)

I read up on the reason for the deletion and it was totally justified at the time. I had created the article quickly last night before bed and was in the process of editing it when it was deleted. Would it be appropriate to recreate it with the edited content to try again? I added the "fraternity box" on the right hand side of the page and am currently trying to link it to the delval.edu greek. I am also planning on moving the organizations website from a reference to an external link, and only using the college website as a reference (until more can be found). I'll check back often to see your response. I am pretty new at this and would like to become an active contributor. Hopefully you can give a few pointers. Thanks! ZX Goldmember —Preceding undated comment added 18:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC).

we have rarely accepted as notable a fraternity that is limited to a single college, though there have been exceptions for some of the famous clubs at places like Yale and Harvard. This fraternity is a single remaining chapter of what once was a two-chapter fraternity--and being a two chapter fraternity is in the usual opinion here pretty dubious about notabilty. -- Consequently, I do not think it is at all likely that it is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the term, unless there are unusually good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. The best advice I can give you is to have the sources at hand before you write the article. Similarly, I am not at all sure about whether the article Zeta Chi would pass AfD, and what you need to do if you are interested is to look for such sources also. Considering it has some distinguished alumni, you might be able to find some. As an immediate step, it would help very much to add some information there saying it is not the same as the fraternity at DVC/Ursinus; this will at least provide a starting point for further work.

as a general guide for working here, I have found it easier to work from sources, than from subjects, whether in making new articles or in adding to existing ones. Find a book or an article about something that interests you, and see what you can do with it. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with a hostile IP editor who try's to dominate instead of cooperate.

Hello again DGG long time.

I am asking for your input in the issue of the apparent conflict of interest of an IP editor, and on wiki bad behavior on the part of that editor. I have outlined the matters here

In brief I belive this person to have a conflict of interest, and I have reported it there. After having given the person in question the chance to come clean. I have tried to compromise with them, so have other users. They would have none of it. To top it all off the person posted information on me that borders on libel which they found on a webpage written to attack me. The link above links to everything else.

I can deal with someone who does not want to compromise. I cannot deal with someone who is going to try to blackmail/intimidate me into just going away or whatever. (Even though I did step away for a full calendar year an not edit any transsexualism related article).

If you don't want to wade into this I will understand.

Thankyou.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to give the the same advice about personal names as was done at the noticeboard. If you must use these to make a valid complaint, the way to do it is through WP:OTRS. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

5pm article

Hi there!

You helped me today with this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5PM. Thank you very much! I hope others can extend and improve it.

But you renamed the article from "5pm" to "5PM" and I realize that all but the first letters are case sensitive. I used "5pm" since that's how the main source and the site logo suggested.

In any case - could be one way or another - but I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5pm should redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5PM or vice versa. But I don't know how to do such redirects. Can you help please?

request

Hi. Long time no request. If and when you have the time, I'd like your input here: [4] Thanks!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd much rather work on this than the immediately previous problem. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, your opinion is valued and your work appreciated. Yeah, last time was a Perfect Day for a mess. In all fairness I was out of my depth then, too. Nothing has changed much since then. By the way, isn't there criteria for inclusion in the Library of Congress?

Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DGG, excellent work. Thank you for doing this and putting in the time to do it. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Kids Top 20

Can this stub article Kids Top 20 be deprodded? 86.156.83.230 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

anyone can remove a prod, but after that, anyone else can insist on sending the article to AfD for a community decision. I did remove the prod myself just now, for the article has references, and it seems fairly likely that the references are sufficient to show that it's notable by our standards. That will not however stop someone from sending it for an AfD, but the article should be defensible. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DGG, how would one go about creating Proposed Deletion (misc)? Cunard (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

All our procedures seem to be based on templates & Categories. If you want to do this, fortunately there's a procedure that can just be copied and modified, BOOKPROD. But first, I would strongly advise naming it something less confusing with regular PROD--as I think this is intended only for secret pages, and the name should not start with Prod, but something like SecretPagesProd. Second, copy the template at T:Book-prod, making appropriate changes, and then do the dependent pages& categories. If you think there is actual consensus. I would wait a few days to see. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think something with such a narrowly-defined scope would be successful? Editors might oppose it per WP:CREEP. Cunard (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Using "Smurf" to describe Rav Shach ?

Hi DGG: Please take a moment to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jewish religious censoring by user that has arisen as a result of the insistence of a user or two to describe Rabbi Elazar Shach as a Smurf, from here Talk:Elazar Shach#Archived off-topic chat (latterly renamed). Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Deborah Leslie

amen and thank you. ViniTheHat (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

01:32, 9 September 2010 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "Ahmed Haggagovic"

dear DGG ; Good Evening ;

Reference to the subject above , i would be glad to know how can the article not be deleted , as Ahmed Haggagovic is a real person and he realy travelled to all the countries which is written and you can check his website and his YouTube videos ... http://wheretheshitistheegyptian.weebly.com/

i would be so thankfull if you can help me update the article and put more useful information as he's the egyptian who want to make peace all over the world by his simple dance ...

Kind Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haggagovic (talk • contribs) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because I do not regard the claims in the article show any plausible importance. Existence is not importance, and neither is travelling to multiple places and making YouTube videos of oneself dancing there. I think it extremely unlikely that the community will decide differently, but the only way to convince you will be to undelete it & send it to WP:AFD for a community discussion. I advise you however, that it needs sources--not just his own YouTube videos or his web site, but references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Any language will do, but if it will be non-english, provide a summary. If you do not have such sources, I can predict that the material will certainly be deleted by the community. Considering that, do you have such sources, or do you want to wait until you have them, or do you want the discussion anyway, even though it will be essentially hopeless? Let me know here. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jpbfcgsat/Justin_Blanchard

Thank you for your constructive feedback on my biography on Justin Blanchard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jpbfcgsat/Justin_Blanchard). I made the additions to the references, as you suggested, and am ready to move the biograpgy to mainspace. Unfortunately, as a first-time author, I have no idea how to accomplish the move. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Jpbfcgsat (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved it, to Justin Blanchard. Next step is to learn the way of having the references link to specific places in the article. See sections 3 & 4 of the chapter in , Wikipedia: The Missing Manual] After that, consider working on some related topics--for example expanding the articles for the various works and organizations linked to from your article. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Need your help

You're usually very good at finding sources where others can't. It is regretfully that I've initiated this AfD. Can you look into it? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

working on it; I can certainly verify the books, listed and a few others as well, but I'd like to get more than that. You know, I can do this before an AfD , also. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

LarkinToad2010

Hi, User:LarkinToad2010 proposed an article for deletion a few days ago, but apparently something went wrong with the nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Offices of State and the article history. I'm not sure if and what should be done about this, so perhaps you can have a look? --Crusio (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears LarkinToad2010 is engaging in unfounded, and contentious editing. Does this mean we may have to move forward with the ANI we have to discussed (on Crusio's talk page)? The other article this person is attacking is Theresa May. In addition, the AfD for "Great Offices" appears to be inappropriate and could be viewed as disruptive editing. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look right now. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not understanding Great offices of State could be just ignorance, but it seems he does not take it well when he is provided with information. The Larkin festival material remains rampant promotionalism. I've made some very gentle edits there, and will wait upon the event. Given that I've edited it, I'm not an uninvolved administrator. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Merci

Well done on finding the reference for the J B Lefebvre article; I thought that a company that survived so long would have some sources available and I anticipated being able to add some research to the article, but (alas!) came up empty-handed. Thanks for going the extra mile and finding a source. PS I think it may be time to archive - your talk page gave my 'puter an aneurysm --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

TeleType Co. deletion

I really didn't mean to simply advertise the company. Thanks for the information and sugestions. I will take them into account when rebuilding the page. Regards, Bogdan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan247 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

AN discussion notification

A general discussion at WP:AN#AfD's generally closed too soon also involves some of your edits. You are invited to give your view on this as well. Fram (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I have opened a case at ANI about LarkinToad2010 in which you are mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LarkinToad2010. --Crusio (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Fabe

It's been one of those mornings: tidying up Association of Business Executives after stub-sorting it I thought links or redirects from their postnominal initials would be useful, but hit a problem with FABE. Found that there was an existing article at Fabe (which I've moved to Karl Angel Fabe), unsourced BLP. On further investigation, it was previously an article about a different bloke - here, with a couple of sources, one of which at least verify that he existed and was a French rapper (the other seems a dead link). In Oct 2008 it was over-written, and no-one seems to have noticed or cared. There were a couple of incoming links which I've changed to point to Fabe (French rapper).

But why I'm here is to ask what the procedure is for rescuing the 1st Oct 2008 version and reviving it as Fabe (French rapper). I didn't just revert to that version, because there was the article on the other man which would then have been effectively deleted.

I've made a new dab page at Fabe, and en route I disentangled a duplicate article for an Australian rugby player (now a redirect from Fabe McCarthy).

So, what should I do, or is there anything you as an admin can do simply, to reinstate the over-written article about the Frenchman?

PamD (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I did it by renaming and selective undeletion in a confusing and complicated way. I should have simply done it as specified at WP:SPLIT, giving the links. But it did come out right. I hope. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - sorry to give you so much work! In hindsight I think I should just have reverted to the 1 Oct version, leaving any enthusiast for the Filipino rapper to re-create his page another time. Ah well. PamD (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I also had the same idea about what to do with that part of the p. DGG ( talk ) 14:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirect mistake

Just a note. Perhaps the redirect was placed wrongly when you closed this... Thanks. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 11:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks; I think I've fixed it now. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Destivelle deleted for notability Feb 2008

I couldn't dig up the history/discussion for the deletion, so I thought I'd try here.

She's one of the foremost rock climbers and alpinists- male or female, in the world, and has been for decades. Solo ascent of the north face of the Eiger, dominating sport climbing for 4-5 years, staggering free solo (unroped) ascents filmed and widely admired. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Destivelle has an article. en should, too.

Jimmythegeek (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The article I deleted (via speedy as giving no indication of importance--so that;s why there's no discussion) read only "Catherine Destivelle (born July 24, 1960, Algeria) is a French climber and mountaineer." I seem to have totally overlooked the interwiki links to the extensive articles in the other WPs. My error, most certainly, and I've restored it at Catherine Destivelle. Thanks indeed for spotting this & following up. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for giving the Florence House article a chance. I appreciate you helping to make it better. Feetplanted (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mild refactoring of your deletion review comment

Will you please verify that the relocation of your signature that I did here reflects your intent? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

yes

Thanks

Thank you for your comment. I'm still a bit surprised that my arguments, advocating deletion purely from a standpoint of it's not a good article, rather than some weird child protective thing, are in the minority on the deletion front. If I hadn't read that it had been inexplicably redirected to WP space, I wouldn't have gotten involved, but that fact, and the fact that people were defending it, spurred me to respond. --Golbez (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

yes, that redirect attracted considerable attention. There actually are a few people here who basically disagree with NOT CENSORED, and keep trying to push us away from it. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

THE DARKNESS!!!

Oh no! I fear that the light is fading in the DGG! -- THE EVIL MUST BE PURGED BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!

Just kidding, though I felt like saying that after seeing your recent nominations for deletion of Dave Pratt and Zeta Chi, both of which I have added a bunch of sources. You are too important to Wikipedia for me to allow you to get away with nominating articles for deletion lightly ;) —CodeHydro 21:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As for Pratt, I don;t know how I missed the sources, but I remain dubious because of WP:LOCAL and the extremely weak documentation of the key claims. As for the frat, also WP:LOCAL. In both cases I've commented at the AfDs. This is not actually wildly exceptional behavior for me; from the start, I have been relatively deletionist about local events and personalities, as was even remarked on by Iridescent at my RfA. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was just being facetious :P I am well aware that you routinely delete articles and that you're not the "arch-inclusionist" that a lot of people seem to think you are. Just thought it'd be a more entertaining way of asking you to look at those articles than a boring old "please see my updates" note, you know? (Really, I'm not that crazy an inclusionist!) Anyhow, I seriously considered the idea of turning the article into a redirect (a "soft" delete) to a sentence in the Baker University article, but in the end, after reading WP:LOCAL, I decided that moving it to Zeta Chi (Baker University) may be the ideal choice so that Zeta Chi may be turned into a disambiguation page since other frats/sororities exist of the name.

Could you do me a small favor? Since I found a few other Zeta Chis, would you mind taking a look at the deleted version of Zeta Chi (Disambiguation) and letting me know whether there is any potentially useful information there that can be recovered to produce a better disambiguation page or if the current Zeta Chi article the only item there? Thank you. —CodeHydro 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

db-move

Thanks for your message. I guess I am a stick-in-the-mud when it comes to adapting to changes; I think db-g6 is my favourite deletion template. However I will try to use more appropriate ones from now on. Green Giant (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding article deletion

In your note regarding the deletion of the Theta Alpha Omega article, you stated that the tone of the article was not "encyclopedic". Since I am fairly new at this, would you be able to give me examples of words or phrases that you considered to be inappropriate for Wikipedia? Orsonscottcard (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

what I said, is the general rule that material copied from an organization's web site usually contains material that is not encyclopedic. That's a shorthand term that for a group like this means material of interest only to members or potential members of the organization. Looking at your particular web site, there isn't all that much on it yet to be copied, but details about what qualifies people for each class of membership, or information about where and when meetings are held, are typical examples.

I won't quarrel about whether the community will accept an article, & if you want me to restore it and send it to AfD in order to find out, I will do that--but as I advised you, the chances will be much better later on--at this point, without 3rd party references, it's close to zero, and a rejection at AfD will make it more difficult to get an article accepted later on. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I was not intending to quarrel over anything, I was simply trying to understand what the community standards are. I had reviewed numerous fraternity and sorority pages prior to writing mine, and I tried my best to follow the models available in regards to content (for instance, I would not have included the information about membership classes had I not seen that as a common thing on other pages). I would like to eventually rewrite this article to meet the community standards, but I have yet to get a good explanation of what those standards are and trying to model off of other "acceptable" pages is clearly not working. If you would be willing to give me any sort of meaningful guidance on this, I would greatly appreciate it. Orsonscottcard (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Closure

Thank you for handling that RFC closure. May I recommend considering including the section just below it and/or putting a {{hat}} on it, as the discussion occurred during the RFC, and can be taken as part of the effort to intervene. Thanks again. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - I just noticed that you also responded to that section, so my suggestion may be moot. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I did it in response to your note--I had been wondering how much to include in the closure. thanks. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Vision 2015

Yes, please do look for independent sources, and good luck in improving and having the article kept, if you manage to. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Recipients of nanosecond

Hello again, DGG … I just came across this newly created article, Recipients of nanosecond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I don't think that it meets the WP:GNG, but I am reluctant to PROD it without getting an opinion from Some Other Editor … you and I don't always agree, but I have a lot of respect for your opinions, so I would either {{Prod-2}} it or just drop it from my watchlist, depending on your response. :-)

Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)}

That she handed these out is , properly, included in Grace Hopper; however,based on the "Close Encounter" reference in the article [5] she seems to have handed out a great many; it's not as if it were an award, just memorabilia. So at best it would be , "People who have said they were given ...". However the user is an infrequent contributor, so rather than delete the article I'm trying to figure out some way to repurpose it, in the hope of encouraging him. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recipients of nanosecond. — 71.166.157.40 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FNC Controversies RfC

Could you please clarrify your statement. After reading your statement a few times I am still unsure what your reasoning was. Arzel (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Southbeach page

DGG, thank you for your advice relating to the speedy delete... understanding what is and isn't considered notable, and finding the right kind of links is challenging when from this side of the fence it seems so obviously out there and being used by a lot of people... there are more links and we will be adding them... This page has been here for over a year and we certainly have many instances of Southbeach being used in the world. Is there anything we need to do to avoid a robot deleting the page due to tagging? Part of the point of the page was to encourage people to think about modelling situations visually so that they can be improved... something we need help with now! After instructions were put on my talk page I added {{hangon}} to the top of the page to give time to find the kind of evidence that is being asked for but someone seems to have removed that and I don't want to add it if that is in fact the wrong process! I think it requires someone to really look at what we are putting there rather than relying on a time delay activated robot. Is this possible? -- Mbonline (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It has not yet been deleted--the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southbeach notation has two more days to run. If you can get good refs in, & make other necessary improvements, it will not be deleted. If it is deleted, I or any administrator can transfer the deleted article to your user space for improvement & give an opinion for when it's ready to go back; if it looks clearly OK, we can move it back; if it looks like it might be challenged, we'll advise you to ask at [[W{P:Deletion Review]]. What you need is not just examples using it, but papers and reviews discussing it in a substantial way, that have been published in what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. This can be a problem with software. Formal conference papers at major computer conferences with peer-refivewed submission count; less formal unreviewed presentations count much less. The ones you have in the article & the additional ones listed in the discussion are problematic for various reasons: answers.com is no more reliable than Wikipedia; Vic's picks is a brief note, not a full review; the BP Trends articles are written by the developers; mindmapping.org is a site whose authority is not obvious; the stroud consulting paper merely includes Sb on a list. However, even if you fix the sourcing problem, the article itself is a product brochure, not an encyclopedia article--it is much to detailed: an encyclopedia describes the product, but does not give case studies of its use & a complete list of the symbols : remove all this. Good luck with it. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC) .

Possible CSD-G4 again on Old Pal Tackle box

Hi DGG, the article Old Pal Tackle box has been created yet again, by User:Brendenhows. As you reviewed my recent CSD-G4 on a highly similar article, please examine this one. I don't want to tag it for speedy delete needlessly, if it's sufficiently different that G4 doesn't apply. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

the previous deletion was of a article on a specific model of Old Pal tackle box. For this more general article, the objections at the AfD do not apply & I think there's good precedent for such articles here. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah good. Thanks very much for checking. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinajoy revisited

DGG, re. you reverting my removal of 'sponsors' [6] sorry, but (as of now, anyway) the 3 refs to http://en.chinajoy.net/ do not work; the site seems dead.  Chzz  ►  03:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked for Chinese refs also (or asked for help in doing so). ? Is there any conceivable reason to think they are incorrect? DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, can't speak Chinese. But per WP:BURDEN, I think they should go. I've started a chat on the talk page. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN does not say what you think it does: It says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" not material that has been added and a source accepted--especially accepted after a community discussion as here. Once material has been shown to be sourced, then if the link goes bad, the burden has already been met. (Except for negative BLP.) This is explained further in WP:DEADLINK: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link." Bold face in the original. The assumption is that anything that did have a reference link is in fact referenced & it is just a technical matter of finding it again, on or off line. With techniques such as you are using I could find reasons to remove half the material from Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I do respect and understand your points; I think the article talk is the more appropriate venue, so I've responded over there. Best,  Chzz  ►  01:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

TJAARKE MAAS (1974-2004)

Could you please undelete this article? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to the correct name according to our style, Tjaarke Maas Among the reasons for not copying from a web site is that even with permission, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. And this is the case here. 1. You need exact references for quotations & other sources, and they must be from published reliable sources, not unpublished testimonials, or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Some of the external links here are probably suitable--see WP:CITE for the correct format. 2. Vague statements of praise & artistic merit are meaningless here unless from a published reliable source. 3. Most important, , what is needed most is not tributes, but critical reviews in published sources, and evidence that several of her paintings are in major museums or noted private collections. We also need 3rd party sourced evidence for the solo exhibitions. Again, some of the external links can be used here. 4 The sentence about her death is unacceptably vague. I started the fixing for you, and now I advise you to improve this article quickly, and then I will take another look. Please read our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice and all, but it's not my article and I really don't have any interest in it beyond the fact that I'm an OTRS team member and we got usable permission which addressed the only reason given for deletion: copyright violation. You might have better luck addressing your comments to the creator Yuryo (talk · contribs). Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

my apologies--I was a little puzzled, and I have copied it over. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Saginaw Public School District

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

JamesBWatson (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Roddon

I saw your user-page headline: "People who use WP expect when they look for an article, to find something". I may have something that people could find!

I have had a heads-up AFD alert (WP:NAD) from iridescent (talk · contribs) about my new article roddon (alternate spelling rodham). Would you be so kind as to help me make the article less like a definition please? --Senra (Talk) 20:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I reworked the organization of the article to be about the geographical feature, & added the basic ref. I suggest you now look for the other references in the Silvester book & add them as direct references, instead of referring to them in such a way it will take research to find them.. I think you'll find a number of other papers on the geography in G scholar, using the various forms of the word. then there are the appropriate professional databases to check, Geobase and Georef, if you want to carry it that far. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This illustrates my general rule , that every noun in the English language can have an encyclopedic article written about the thing it represents. DGG ( talk )`

Thank you so much. I do intend researching the references. The article has been much improved by you and Malleus from my original, er, definition! --Senra (Talk) 09:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately researching some of these papers will take a while, as I do not have access to Jstor; I get my papers from the local library via inter-library loan. It will get done though, slowly and surely --Senra (Talk) 10:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I can send you the one I added & others from JSSTOR--but do you have the book you added the others from so you can give me the refs? Email me so I know where to send them. DGG ( talk ) 13:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just popped back here and seen your earlier request. In the meantime, I had posted a request for Godwin (1938) here and Fowler (1932) here; I have since received both articles. I have the Astbury (1987)[1958] book from the local library. I also have a photocopy of the full Silvester (1984-1985) pp. 66–67 paper but the difficulty I am having is that Silvester has some spelling mistakes (and I complicated it by making typos of my own). So, reading direct from Silvester Bob (ed.), David Hall (1984-85) Fenland Survey number 2 Fenland Project in conjunction with Norfolk archaeological unit rather than the article roddon we have

1. Darby (1940) ✗ Not done I am guessing this is H C Darby (1940) The Medieval Fenland. I do not have a copy but I can get it from the library
2. Phillips (1970) ✗ Not done
3. Godwin (1978) ✗ Not done but if this is really Godwin, H (1938). "The Origin of Roddons". Geographical Journal. 91 (3): 241–250. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) then  Done

• There is indeed a Godwin (1978) as confirmed in Smith (2010) p. 258 although I do not have access to the Godwin (1978) paper. It is (from Smith (2010)): Godwin, H., 1978. Fenland: Its Ancient Past and Uncertain Future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 196. --Senra (Talk) 21:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Godwin (1978) Fenland: It's ancient past and uncertain future  Done --Senra (Talk) 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Also (from Smith 2010 again) Godwin, H., 1940. Studies of the Postglacial history of British vegetation. III. Fenland pollen diagrams. IV. Postglacial changes of relative land and sea-level in the English Fenland. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 230, 239–303. --Senra (Talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Gordon Fowler (1932)  Done Fowler, Gordon (1932). "Old River-beds in the Fenlands". Geographical Journal. 79 (3): 210–212. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
2. Seale (1975) Soil Survey in Cambridgeshire ✗ Not done This is (from Smith 2010) Seale, R.S., 1975. Soils of the Ely District. Memoirs of the Soil Survey of Great Britain. Harpenden, England and Wales, p. 253. --Senra (Talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
3. Astbury (1958)  Done as Astbury (1987) (3rd. ed)
4. Skertchley (1877) ✗ Not done though if this is really Skertchly, Sidney B J (1877). "The Geology of the Fenland". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Text "HMSO" ignored (help) then  Done
5. Egar (1895–97)  Done I think. I found a reference to rodham by Egar in Caster, G C (1897). Fenland notes and queries:A quarterly antiquarian journal for the fenland, in the counties of Huntingdon, Cambridge, Lincoln, Northampton, Norfolk, and Suffolk. Vol. 3.
6. OS (1886) 1:2500 ✗ Not done but I can do this no worries
7. Simmons (1980) ✗ Not done Silvester says: "In Lincolnshire too, roddon seems to have been adopted although in more recent years (e.g. Simmons 1980)"

If you can help identify any of the papers it would be appreciated. Email on the way --Senra (Talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Graboid AfD

Huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graboid_%282nd_nomination%29&curid=28153529&diff=386812345&oldid=376663115 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted it just after I posted this, btw. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry--too many to keep track of where I was. My apologies for not double-checking. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess who's a sock?

sigh. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

and pretty transparent at that, even without checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Am I just that blind? I've had GA reviews done by Otto4711 before, but Cow was just a vicious pile of festering nastiness through and through. Sigh again. Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Otto has done good work here quite often. But I know how strongly he feels about some issues, and that sometimes produces things like this. It's even done so among one or two of my friends here, with similar results. the only recent case I was really surprised at was Pastor Theo. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Geology & geophysics

I was wondering if you could weigh in on a discussion which has occured on my talk page. It pertains to the question, is geophysics a subdiscipline of geology. From reliable sources I have determined that it is. Another editor disagrees. I am interested in you opinion. Perhaps it would be helpful to quickly review the discussion. Here is the link Talk:Steve Quinn#Geophysics category. Hope you have time. If time is an issue, don't worry about it. We probably do an RFC or something along those lines. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

nre User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?

User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? has been indef-blocked as a sockpuppet of indef-blocked abusive puppetmaster User:Otto4711. His edit contributions, AFD comments, and AFD nominations will require scrutiny. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On early closes

Being one of the guilty offenders I am reading all the current threads on this issue and realize that I might have to radically change the way I close AFDs. One of the problems is that I'm use to working off the 7 day log. (I could work off the 8 day log where everything is ready to close but that would mean that many AFDs will be left open a lot longer then they need to be) I was not trying to race anybody to close AFDs first, it was just that I was already there doing relists and it made sense to also go ahead and punch the slam dunk keeps. I always knew what time it was (which is why I was able to close this AFD special just for you :) and let the clock tick out on anything that was still receiving comments. Sanstein did make a very good point about delete closes though.

As I already said, considering the current discussions on this issue it is very surprising that this wasn't bought up at my RFA. All and all I was surprised at how easy the community went on my there considering the 20+ question interrogation that some other candidates received. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What I do is to show GMT on my computer, and watch the time, working on each day's from the bottom up. What you'll actually get this way will depend somewhat on your time zone, but it spreads out the work. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Maria Brontë

Hi, DGG. Maria Brontë seems to be a case of inherited notability. Would you advise taking this to AfD? Thank you in advance for your guidance! Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering the very famous family, and the fact that the literary role of the individuals were as part of the family to a degree unparalleled in English literature--it was notable to have been a member of it. The article can & should be expanded. The question is really not deletion, but whether to merge it into Bronte family. Given that the family article is quite satisfactory as it is, I'd leave them both alone. We have a great deal of real junk here, where the inclusion in Wikipedia is totally inappropriate to an encyclopedia, and I advise against bothering with borderline material like which is not unsuitable, & just a question of how to organize the articles. Most discussions of whether to merge or have a separate article are just matters of style, and we give excessive time to their discussion. If the material would be included in full somewhere, as here, it doesn't matter much where it is. If there had been no separate article already, I wouldn't have advised splitting out one, but since there is, I wouldn't advise go to the trouble of un-splitting it. If you're looking for areas where there are many articles ripe for deletion, I can give you have some suggestions--you might well start with individual books and minor authors in the pseudo social sciences. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough analysis. I'm not out to nominate articles for deletion; I just happened upon this one and began cleaning it up, before realising that it may not merit inclusion. I will continue cleaning and expand the article. Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomas J. Kuber

Hi DGG. It just came to my attention that you "deprodded" the article noting that it has references.[7] I would like to point out that when I originally prodded the article I clicked on the links listed in the article but was unable to find anything therein that mentioned Kuber. It does not make a big difference either way, I just wanted to notify you lest you think I am incorrectly prodding articles.--PinkBull 03:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you were right & I was wrong: I had not verified them--those refs were not enough to show anything, unless the information was somewhere deep in the websites; the original author has now fixed up the article & gotten actual refs. The way to indicate the situation you found is to use the template {{cite check}} after each of the bad references. Had I seen that I would have checked further, because the material asserted was such that there should have been refs. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hector Kim

this article was recreated by User_talk:WangGun at 12:17, 26 September 2010 after you delted it as per db-a7 at 04:15, 26 September 2010. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

i've placed a db-g4 tag on the article, should this be changed to an AfD to permit discussion? WookieInHeat (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had just sent it to AfD for a community decision. G4 does not apply after a deletion via prod or speedy, only after AfD. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, thanks for your help! WookieInHeat (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Undelete Sabbatic Witchcraft

Hi could you please undelete Sabbatic Witchcraft. User:Lulubyrd was mistaken, it didn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion: it's not a duplicate as the creator indicated on the talk page. Thanks.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As you will see, I decided to send it to AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabbatic Witchcraft. I think it not only duplicative but non-notable. Your comments there are welcome. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That was quick, glad you noticed. It's possible it might not have turned out to be notable, (hard to say, it was just a new stub).—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Need direction

Not sure how these things are generally handled or how to report incidents. This article Dj littlefoot has now been created three times by User:Djlittlefoot. User also keeps adding page protection on the article. I think this article needs to be kept from being created and the user needs to be blocked for username violation. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I could do that, but since the article lists what some people might perhaps consider references for notability, I though it best to send it to AfD. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dj littlefoot. For the username, list at WP:UAA . DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your assistance. However, the user has removed the speedy several times and now deleted the AfD. Amazingly disruptive, in my opinion. At the same time, none of the references are reliable or independent of the subject. ; ) I will comment at the AfD. Cindamuse (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The AfDs has been restored, as always happens, and it will prove counter productive, as always. Once I've sent it for a community decision, I think the community should decide. I think it will clarify things generally for others to confirm that they too do not think references like this are substantial for the purposes of WP:N. But any other admin who agrees with my initial decision is free to Speedy it during the AfD--it's enough that the community will have seen it to confirm my initial decision. Just comment there, & we'll undoubtedly soon see the last of it, & there will be attention on it in case of further problems. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Salama

• • PLEASE UNDELETE JOSEPH SALAMA **

This needs to be added to the article:

Joseph Salama is a notable figure because, despite being a Moslem himself, is outspoken as being against Moslem extremists and terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexylamb69 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Highly commendable, but in my opinion not notable in the sense of being appropriate for an encyclopedia . But since the community might think differently, and there are sources that were not present at the first AfD, I've undeleted and sent to AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Joseph Salama (2nd nomination). You are invited to commented there. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexylamb69 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pivotal Payments article

Hi DGG
Thanks a lot for your comments and editing. Still learning how to avoid advertisement style.
I compared with other similar pages to get an idea but not clear to me as this is an article describing a company.
I was using the Talk:Pivotal_Payments page thinking it was the right way to do it instead to post notes on every editor's page but, again, I'm new and tons of things to learn.
Any other suggestion is very welcome.
Socialpiv (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the proper place to discuss it is the article talk p., & I will make some comments there. But in practice, many active people here are involved in reviewing so many articles that our watchlists are impracticably long, and we do not check unless reminded. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Julia Usher article advice

Thanks for the note at the Julia Usher talk page. However, let me ask about composers before I put any more work in on articles. There's a list of female composers here. The list has been assembled from the references given, and you'll see that a number of the entries have no articles. I've recently written a number of articles on these (and other) composers under the impression they (and others listed) were considered notable enough for articles through a composers project within Wikipedia. If this isn't true and all the articles I've written on composers will be challenged for lack of notability, then I'm wasting a lot of time. Should I consider these listed composers notable through some project within Wikipedia or not? Pkeets (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing Wikipedia does not have, which is anything resembling coordination. Anyone who feels like making a list can do so, and put on it whatever they please, and anyone else can take things off it: it has no authority whatsoever. There have been frequent disagreements about our criteria for lists of this sort, and there's not likely to be much in the way of consensus. There are two alternative ways: one, is that the list should be limited to those who have Wikipedia articles or are obviously qualified for one (in which case it's a good idea to give some indication of why for the redlinks); the other is that it's a list of everyone who has any significance whatsoever, and the redlinks can be used as suggestions for what might possibly but not certainly make an article. This particular list was compiled by many perople, and the references at the bottom say: "List partially created using Grove's "Explore" function, Grove Music Online, and The Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers.

What this means, of course, is that you should check first before making an article. Any composer with a full article in Grove is considered here as notable, because we include the subjects covered by other major encyclopedias. Other than that, the rules are at WP:CREATIVE. The ones most used for classical composers are either " regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" which needs to be shown by 3rd party references, or that "created a significant ... work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". In practice, we regard being recorded by a significant label asa sign of notability also. And, analogous to performers, we use that the works have been played my major orchestras. It helps enormously if there are published substantial reviews--if there are, there is no possible problem. I notice in checking names on the list, that a good many of the recent people listed do not show this very clearly, but I strongly suspect many of the earlier ones are covered by better references than those listed.

If you want to work in this area, the best way to go about it is to find reference works that do cover a number of people, and add articles for the ones you find treated. GThis is usually much easier than first picking a subject, and then looking for references. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Access to Grove is by subscription only, so I'm limited for articles to the Norton/Grove dictionary which is partially digitized online. I suspect that most of the women composers on the Wikipedia list would fail the criteria you've given above. Especially as you go back into history, there isn't much information available, and there seems to have been little attempt to save their compositions. Pkeets (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Most large public libraries and all academic libraries have Grove, either online or print or both. I can certainly check for you or forward copies of individual articles. But as you go back, things get a little easier in some ways, because historical or biographic accounts are more likely to have been written. Always try Google books & Open Library. And try WorldCat, which includes musical compositions. You might want to suggest to the Music Workgroup a project to fill in the redlinks in that list. One of the great things here, is that because of the great number of participants, you never have to be on your own--whatever you are interested in, at least a few other people will be also. DGG ( talk ) 07:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are in the UK your local public library probably offers you access to Grove online from your home. If it doesn't, you can join Lancashire County Libraries. As far as I know they also allow non-UK residents to join ( I deduce this from "Cards are posted to UK residents only, other users will receive notification by email." on their "join the library page at http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/libraries/borrower/join.asp). PamD (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fred J. Hart

This was perfectly reasonable stub and the person is really interesting, he was involved in major controversy related to field of radionics, continued waork of controversial medical doctor (Abrams) for 25 years. he established National Health Federation in 1956 which still exists. He established county, state, and national farming associations in the US. he was subject of major battles with teh FDA. How can he possibly not be worthy to be in Wikipedia? Pcirrus2 (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored it, since it does after all at least assert significance. This was my error, & I apologize. I was probably influenced by the circumstance of it having no references at all, even though that is not a requirement for avoiding speedy deletion. (although no death date was give, he is stated to have been born in 1888, & if so, is undoubtedly not a living person) DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)