User talk:DGG/Archive 7 Aug. 2007

Lilly Arbor Project

I have helped the user who worked on this with a fresh draft, better sourced, composed in userspace and then moved to article space. This has effecivly removed your prod notice. I think you will find this sufficiently sourced now, but have a look for yourself. (independant sourcing is still thinner than i would like, but non-zero). DES ^(talk) 17:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your unremitting efforts on my behalf, and drastically improving my feeble scratchings. Filll 18:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Primary source only articles

I would tend to agree that a teacher would and should insist on the student looking at the book itself. That's because any self-respecting teacher would have the student writing a secondary source—a research paper or the like.

On the other hand, this is intended to be a tertiary source. It's intended to be a collection of the reliable and verified research of others from looking at primary sources, not our own work in that vein. Sometimes, primary sources can be used for some supplemental material with secondary ones being used for the main bulk, if purely descriptive claims are made. But in everything, we should be mirroring secondary sources, not second-guessing them. If a reliable source says something I believe to be wrong, we go with the source, not me. By the same token, if secondary sources don't write about a given subject at all, or a given aspect of that subject, we should mirror that—by not writing about it at all. Students in class are intended to be the original author and first publisher of their work. (If they're not, they'd better hope to have a dumb teacher!) That's not the idea here at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure there. I think it's good we tend to require secondary sources, just because of our nature as a tertiary source. I guess I just don't see "List of times X got mentioned somewhere" as of particular relevance to that, it seems to fail indiscriminate information collection. (I'm aware that's significantly overused, but here it really does seem to apply.) I think the cultural influences of works are better done by citing works that actually speak to how the work has influenced culture, rather than just saying "X seems to have been influenced by Y" with nothing to back that up. In some cases that is a purely descriptive statement which doesn't need secondary sourcing (for example, to state that Weird Al's "Like a Surgeon" is a parody of Madonna's "Like a Virgin"), but in a lot of cases it steps over the line into original synthesis if no one's actually studied it and come to that conclusion. I think what TV Guide or other secondary sources do there is allow more elaborate conclusions to be placed in and sourced, where it would be original research to draw them ourself. If that can't be done, and it's basically just a list of "Family Guy spoofed X one time, and so did The Simpsons", I guess I fail to see the value. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm certainly not saying "never notable". (WP:IDONTLIKEIT is just as invalid as WP:ILIKEIT, and mirroring, not second-guessing, sources applies just as much in the other direction). There's tons of material, for instance, on the cultural impact of shows like The Simpsons, South Park, and even some soap operas. I'm sure articles could be written on those subjects and sourced perfectly well. But a good article on that subject would go far beyond "A was mentioned in X, Y, and Z." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lansbridge U.

Good ole Lansbridge U is back at Lansbridge University, so as not to "canvass you" - given that you're likely to !vote contrary to my position anyway :-) - I won't tell you about the AFD going on for that article. ;-) Carlossuarez46 21:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC) (discussed at the AfD-DGG)

Thank you

For your message[1] .You have contributed a lot .Have a lot to learn from you.Harlowraman 23:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Deeprose

You should probably review that one tagged speedy and either keep it or send it to afd, because there is a claim of having won an award that no individual should pass judgment upon. Carlossuarez46 02:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims to notability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notability question

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

ExtraDry

Hi, I just thought I would draw to your attention the behaviour of editor Extradry in respect of multiple disruptive speedy deletions on Old Boys of Newington College. Following your comments on the multiple deletions of University VCs I thought you might like to look at taking some action. Tallum 13:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC) (List of Old Newingtonians) no serious recent disruptive edits. DGG (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Since that time ExtraDry has placed a speedy on the following:

• Frank Howarth - Geologist, Director Australian Museum and former Director Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney
• Hon Leycester Meares AC CMG QC - Former NSW Supreme Court Judge, Chairman NSW Law Reform Commission, Benefactor and Chairman of Kidsafe
• Judge Herbert Curlewis - Former NSW District Court Judge and husband of Ethel Turner (Author of Seven Little Australian
• Hon Justice Roger Gyles AO - Federal Court Judge, Royal Commissioner Building Industry in New South Wales and former President NSW Bar Association and Australian Bar Association
• Clive Ramaciotti - Philanthropist whose foundation has donated $50 million to biomedical research
• Frank Hinder AM - Artist renowned as a major force in Australian modernism
• Graham Davis - Walkley and Logie Award winning Investigative Journalist for BBC, ABC and Nine Network's Sunday
• Christopher Lee - AFI Award and AWGIE Award winning Screenwriter of Secret Life of Us
• Dr John Burton AM - Former Head Department of External Affairs, High Commissioner and Founder Centre for the Analysis of Conflict.

And the following have been deleted at his suggestion:

• Prof William Doe - Former Dean of Medicine University of Birmingham and Professor of Medicine at ANU and Sydney
• Rogey Foley (aka Ellis D Fogg) - Considered by the National Film & Sound Archive (ScreenSound Australia) to be Australia's most innovative lighting designer and lumino kinetic sculptor
• Darren Yap - Theatre Director, Actor and Associate Director Sydney 2000 Olympic Ceremonies

This seems to be a highly disruptive pattern of editing. Tallum 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

nealehs deleted article

Hi, I am a new user to wikipedia and I wrote an article on a company called Schultz Jeans. I thought that it would be of interest to people as they are a bit different and they have invented something unique. The delete tag says that it is blatant advertising and that certainly wasn't my intention. I have a background in sales so it's quite possible that I just write like that without noticing. Could you please give me some tips on how to rw-write the article to fit with policy. I read somewhere that I can take the article "back to my own area" for re-writing - how do I do this? As I said before I am new to wikipedia as an editor so I find it slightly confusing - so please be gentle. --Neale Hayward-Shott 08:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for comments

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

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

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

AfDs

Thanks for your work on this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lansbridge_University#.5B.5BLansbridge_University.5D.5D and others. Bearian 21:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jón Ólafur Eiríksson speedy deletion denial

I believe your decision of notability and removal of db-bio speedy deletion tag to be in error. The article contains several statements that do not stand up to casual scrutiny. Obvious jokes in it further support the entire joke/hoax/vandalism nature of the article.

The main notability issue, a claim of withdrawal from the national team (at the precocious age of 16 or 17), is belied by the statement that "the coaches never came to see him play". I read this as a clear joke, it seems obvious he was never on a national team with the coaches ignoring him. Google shows no hits for his name and a national team. There are no hits on the other competition title names he lists. He may have later led Bíldudalur to victory in football, but as it is a fishing village of 195 (per Wikipedia) in 3-club area of 965 (Wikipedia pop. for Vesturbyggð), the notability there seems minimal, likely deliberately so for humorous effect. Now, the 20-year-old is "retired" from a "long and remarkable career".

At best, I see this as a non-notable vanity article. At worst, it is pure hoax vandalism. I believe vandalism is most accurate as it fails the basic "smell test", but either reason should be sufficient for speedy deletion.

Your edit summary states an assertion of notability by the author of the article as a reason for removing the db-bio tag. Without support for notability claims, I do not agree that simple assertion of notability is grounds for keeping an article. I could, for example, falsely claim to be a former member of an Olympic team in an article about myself. This should not, and likely would not, inhibit an editor from successfully nominating my vanity article for speedy deletion after a quick search failed to verify my claim.

Of course, we can go through the harder and longer method of an Afd. I frankly think a decision to delete there is a foregone conclusion and nominating it be a waste of time for everyone involved; which is, after all, the fundamental reason for using speedy deletions instead. Still, if that is what you think most appropriate in this case, then that is the route I shall take. Michael Devore 04:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC) {replied explaining that suspected hoaxes should not be speedied, and that I disagreed that a speedy should be used for weak assertions of notability-DGG)

Follow-up in more detail in my talk that an edit summary denial is often insufficient and supporting your decision to take additional action in the future. Michael Devore 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Roots Music invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Roots music The goal of WikiProject Roots music is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Roots, Folk, and Traditional music available on Wikipedia. WikiProject Roots music as a group does not prefer any particular tradition of Roots, Folk, or Traditional music, but prefers that all traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

I thought you might be interested, especially because of the discussion of the Child Ballads on the talk page at the moment.

-- TimNelson 07:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Roots music! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Roots, Folk, and Traditional music.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The News box will help to keep you up-to-date. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Roots music/News}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment and other tasks.
• For those who like userboxes, we have some available in the Outreach department

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! TimNelson 12:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of Speedy

The reason I tagged Young was that it appeared to be an article that had been finished writing at the time. Upon reflection, I acted prematurely, and will exercise more caution in applying SD templates on possible unfinished pages. I have read PROD, and the other material, and will continue to use them in making beneficial edits. Sorry about that. However, I intend to eventually become and admin, and assist in the SD and vandalism areas of Wikipedia, so rest assured, I'll be working harder to do better. Elenseel 16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian

Very supportive of your view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian.

Can you tell me if you're intending to set up a centralised discussion on the issue? If yes, I'm tempted to run through all the disputed AfDs with a...

Speedy Close (per WP:IAR) pending resolution of the issue at so-and-so centralised discussion in light of the comments of myself and others at this RfC.

...type of vote. AndyJones 17:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. My suggestion was to suggest it, not to implement. My real question was whether you're intending to set up a centralised discussion? (If not, do you know if it's open to me to do so, and if yes would you support me?) AndyJones 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I would, of course, support a centralized discussion on this topic. Bearian 17:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, but do any of us know how to actually set that up? Good idea though it is, my experience is mainly in editing in article space, not in adminstrative stuff. AndyJones 19:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding James Dudley Fooshe

I know you are quite experienced. This is just the suggested boilerplate notification for what I've done and why. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from James Dudley Fooshe, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert C. Beck

Medicine is a field that changes all of the time. Many say that medicine is just a current POV. Many M.Ds. talk in terms of scientific facts, when actually they are talking about the currently widely held theories. A theory is a working opinion or POV.

Robert C. (Bob) Beck, DSc., wanted to give American medicine a push in what he considered the right direction. It is said that a Mexican hospital nominated him for a Nobel Prize. Because of Beck thousands of people have used his protocol to spontaneously go into remission for numerous types of 'incurable' deadly diseases. For example, the Jane Stilwell who operates http://www.bobbeck.com/ reports that her cancer has been gone for years now. On the basis that he saved many lives should be as important a contribution as having been in a Hollywood film.

In his field of alternative medicine he is considered a hero. That should serve as notability enough. The establishment is made up of people who have been educated in a system that has largely been influenced by the Foundations. The establishment has big money, big power, big momentum, big media presence/influence whereas Beck had very little or none. The POV of "the alternative medicine guru" will be suppressed by wiki medical interest group members based on the fact that he was not "one of them," he believed in strange things that skeptics do not, so many establishment people don't like him, and think that he is a flake, unworthy of an article--thereby suppressing knowledge of his contributions to healthcare (alternative or not).

My work on his article is on-going. I'll do some cutting out of stuff and re-organization. The article will be ready in a year or so. Oldspammer 04:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Foot, meet bullet

Heh. Silly mistake: as I was testing the user warning code, I've forgotten to prepent "User talk:" to the user name.  :-) Bang! — Coren ^(talk) 04:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper

That's the main reason I put db-empty on it. I suppose it was a lame excuse for an expand tag; a bad call on my part. If I had known that it was a big newspaper I'd have gone with an expand tag but I thought it was a minor one. Sorries and thanks for catching that! -WarthogDemon 04:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

Hi, Can you please explain why you added the POV at the top of the [[:Marilyn Carroll] page? You didn't post anything in the talk page.Carniv 17:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC) --I think it needs a fuller and more objective presentation of its research and the justifications given for it. By the use of one-sided quotations, it comes very close to being an attack page. DGG

Hey, I have many articles that she has published and I plan on posting direct quotes from some of them. I'm really new to Wikipedia and my goal is really to make a balanced page. I'm really not trying to make an attack page. Could you give me some suggestions of where I should get somemore info from? Thank you! Carniv 10:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Bothering you again. I would really appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard re Patryk Dole as a reference. Sincerely, Novickas 20:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your input. Novickas 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

I know this isn't your area of focus, but I'm interested in your thoughts regarding the Request for Clarification of the paranormal ArbCom decision if you have the time and interest. Thanks, Antelan ^talk 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. I appreciate any conclusion that is informed by thoughtful, sound reasoning, such as yours. Antelan ^talk 22:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

'In popular culture' AfDs

DGG, you are a fantastic editor, and I (think I) understand where you are coming from in your passion in these AfDs. Regarding your comments on the one that I saw most recently (Eiffel Tower in pop culture), I decided I needed to tell you where I am coming from in these situations. I am not against pop culture. Far from it, I think that serious academic study does not pay due attention to certain things because they consider them 'pop culture'. It is not the pop culture element itself that I am against in these articles. What grates me how notable the topic actually is. Pac-man, for instance, is notable. But has Pac-man had a significant impact on pop culture? If so, we should write an article on that impact and how and why it has become an influence in movies, television, and (especially, I would imagine) video games. Paradise Lost is also notable, but every reference to it in pop culture is equally non-notable. There is certainly a well written prose article to be written on how that poem has influenced our culture, and there is definitely scholarship out there on it. A list is not only notoriously difficult to maintain, but it does not provide anything to the reader. An article like 'Paradise Lost in popular culture' should really be Miltonian tradition and talk about Milton and his influence, not a list of things that may or may not have been influenced by him. Please understand that my votes in these AfDs have nothing to do with wanting to banish popular culture from Wikipedia, just to write prosaic, well sourced, and informative articles on these topics. I believe the first step in doing this is to delete these articles that are lists of trivia. I hope you see where I'm coming from? CaveatLector^Talk 01:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your essay, which I think you should add to one of the debates. Let me respond briefly-- In the case of Pac-man and the like, a point could be made that that the page is not really necessary, for the entire discussion of pacman is about the subject IPC-- that's the inherent locus of the subject. For influence of X, then you are right that in general more academic titles are much better--and i would be suggesting them except the same parties have nominated several such articles and seemed it would just confuse the discussion. I'm not sure about Miltonic tradition--this is really over-formal and would sound strange to most WPedians. But there's a third point: the influence of Milton on literature, music, and so on, is a perfectly sound and delmited set of topics. But there is also the influence of Milton on non-literary things. The total sum of references and allusions in even the most trivial of places indicates the impact on the world as a whole, not just the literary or creative part, for it is assumed the viewer/reader will understand. And all of these allusions are related to each other--the set of them, how they are used, why people who have never read the works still use and understand them, is a topic, and the topic is best shown by the collocation of the findable references.

I'm not a specialist in this subject in the least, but I am a bibliographer. I once collected 18th and early 19th century references to Samuel Richardson's works--in the pre internet era, by systematic searching of likely places and by following leads, working in libraries which had perhaps 90% of the possible sources. I didn't work on visual references--I do not have the knowledge of the sources and the tools. And I could never work on 20th century media references at all, for the same reason. But for everything since about 1990, this is different now, and the place to do it is Wikipedia. There is a sense in which this is OR, but for the topics WP concentrates on, it's a logical extension. Gathering is not OR; only interpretation is. Even if WP is the not the place for the work, it's the place to collect the sources,. I don't want to do this work, but I don't want to destroy the sources for it. I am as a librarian horrified by the speed at which we are destroying access. I will still have access as an admin, and the material should certainly be transferred to another wiki--I can help with that but do not have the time to work on it or organize it-- and it is unnecessary--it could have been kept right here.

The question is how to build these up. The current way of deleting them first is so much the wrong way to go, that it is about this that I am fighting. I have things both at WP and in the RW I should be doing rather than defending or rewriting these, things I could do much better than this. So will you help preserve some of it? Will you, for example, help with the Eiffel Tower article, and categorize the ones you know. And then look for the sources for them individually? will you perhaps look at Irvine for a book discussing it to add to the references for the article? On a longer scale, will you rewrite at least the academic sections for some of the ones based on classical topics--your own field? Will you -- even -- be prepared to say at some of the AfDs, "keep, and edit." ? DGG (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am still at Penn at the moment, but I'll see what I can do (time is tight and the library isn't open all hours now because it's summer). As for the AfD's, you've convinced me to be a bit more lenient in what to give the delete to. Perhaps a Project is in order to get these articles policed and compiled into good articles, with some set and agreed upon guidelines. You should, by the way, mention your profession and how it's influencing your decisions in the AfDs, as it helps me understand greatly how some of these topics can, indeed, be notable and useful in the realm of encyclopediahood. As for Eiffel Tower in pop culture, I'll userfy it and see if i can't get to categorizing or fixing it up. CaveatLector^Talk 02:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• For the rename, are you thinking something along the lines of "Yale in culture" or "Yale's influence on culture" or something like that but better-phrased than what I can think of at the moment? (Antelan)

• Keep let's try to think of a good title, sure, and discuss it on the article talk page. I agree that "..in popular culture" is fairly lame, and does indicate an inclination to collection really trivial stuff. Yale's influence on culture is a different matter entirely--Yale's influence on culture is the influence of the work done at Yale and by Yale graduates in the arts and other fields of civilized endeavor. We don't have any real articles of this orientation for any university, besides what's implied in the unviersity articles, and lists of X university people, and it would be a good series--an excellent idea--but it's separate. This article is on the effect that popular knowledge of Yale has on cultural artifacts--things written about Yale, or using Yale as a symbol, or as a theme. It is by the total accumulation of these themes that popular culture--contemporary culture-- is built. The orientation of these articles in WP is almost exclusively on what form of association: the artists, with some attention to the genre. They're easy to write. But the subjects of popular culture are also important. The different subjects that popular music or fiction or film uses indicates what the nature of the films or books or music is--its as important as the people who wrote it, as important as the technical aspects of the genre. These articles are harder to write. The individual items are minor in themselves in most cases--but the assemblage of them is not. In most genres, artists usually work on subjects--not all genres-- Abstract Expressionism comes to mind as an exception. But nobody just writes a love story. they write a love story about people of certain types in a certain setting. That a story refers to Yale indicates something -- they think it indicative, or they think that it will prove interesting.

since when does WP not write about "culture junk"? The glory of WP is that it covers all of it. Notoriously, one persons junk is another's deeply meaningful art. We cover all of what people care about that way. Some people find baseball teams relevant, some people find pokemon relevant, some Opera, and for these and for everything else there are millions who think that such indication is a sign of immaturity or arrogance. Now, the things their works are about are relevant too. The allusions they make in their works are relevant too. that is what culture is about.

The place for accumulating knowledge about this is Wikipedia. Gathering is not OR; only interpretation is. Even if WP is the not the place for the work, it's the place to collect the sources. I don't want to do this work, but I don't want to destroy the sources for it. I am as a librarian horrified by the speed at which we are destroying access. I will still have access as an admin, and the material should certainly be transferred to another wiki--I can help with that but do not have the time to work on it or organize it-- and it is unnecessary--it could have been kept right here.

The question is how to build these up. The current way of deleting them first is so much the wrong way to go, that it is about this that I am arguing this. I have things both at WP and in the RW I should be doing rather than defending or rewriting these, things I could do much better than this. So let us preserve this, and then improve it. Let us see if every one of these trivial references can be sourced and integrated. If we care about WP, let us preserve the content, even if it takes more than 5 days to do so. Every argument here comes down to "keep, and edit." DGG (talk)

use of such material

Sorry if I sounded arrogant, but there have been altogether too many simultaneous discussions of this, and I'm getting a little tired , and yes, exasperated at needing to say it all in some many place to meet the simultaneous comments. Freak104 confirms my uninformed guess that WP is a prime source of comic book information, which I consider an excellent thing. Now it remains to make some use of this by organizing it. Listing things by series and creators and major characters is the obvious first step. Discussing it by themes and allusions is the next. Fully analyzing this is of course OR, but collecting the material already in WP and finding outside references to support it is not. this is what the so called trivia sections now do in a primitive way, and the job now is to do it better. By analogy with other genres I know, and using the basic ideas of organising information familiar to librarians and bibliographers, the first step is to make articles on the various themes and so forth, collect the instances, group them in what logical way the material suggests, reference them exactly to the primary sources from which they came, and then look for additional sources discussing them. Then one normally looks for analogs in other media and genres, and adds them, to show the significance of the material to those not primarily interested in the form, working n a similar fashion. simultaneously one connects the material used in this genre, to articles based on the other genres. Some think there is probably a level of use too minor to be accounted for, but I think the history of scholarship shows otherwise. Most notably, it is the study of the minutia in paintings, that they are ascribed to their proper artists and the historical development of each artists work discerned--this is the basic method of art history. Similarly in literature, there is no allusion in Shakespeare too minor to illuminate Shakespeare, and every trifle has been studied. The day will come for comics too. The material here will be the initial aid in research until more sophisticated work becomes general. I apologize that I have probably repeated all the cliches of such work, but I do not mean to condescend or imply that they are not well known to anyone--I think this a good place to set down a general indication what can be done with such material in general, and hope those knowing the various fields will elaborate and correct. (from WP:Trivia Cleanup). DGG

Two Articles

Should I set up Michael Kozlov and T. Cordelle Louis for afds then? I do hope my tagging hasn't gone downhill btw. I think I've made several mistags in a row these past few days. -WarthogDemon 03:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have come to the conclusion I'm wikibonked. I really should distract myself with other things. (Yes that is a 3rr on my page; long story - you dont' want to know.) :P Thanks for the suggestions though. :) -WarthogDemon 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of RfCU work

Hi, DGG.
User:LAz17 has made a revert that disrupted RfCU procedure (on August 4th; the request was made July 30th, last contribution there before his vandalism was made August 3rd)). See this [2].
He deleted the whole paragraphs that described problematic behaviour of his suspected sockpuppets.
The fact that he's the "investigated party" (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/LAz17), his action make things worse.
His revert is undone in the meantime, but this vandalistic untolerable behaviour has to be reported. Sincerely, Kubura 10:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, DGG, no problem, nobody's perfect. Neither I know everything. I hoped you'll know someone who'll know what to do. Thanks for all, Kubura 08:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Impact

Thank you very much for helping me out. I work for IMPACT Coalition and the other two pages I made branched from IMPACT, so there's not much of an issue regarding copyright there. It all just needs to be verified and my boss plans to make sure of that. Thanks again. Citrific 16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Verne F. Ray

Hi, Not sure what you meant to do that article just now; you've removed the CSD tag, but with the edit summary "being stubbified to remove copyvio". Did you mean to remove the text instead?

Oli Filth 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

j. raymond jones

Thank you for your suggestion. Actually, I know the article is pretty awful and soooo incomplete. I've just read about J. Raymond Jones in Kenneth Clark's Dark Ghetto and I was surprised in not finding any reference to Jones on Wikipedia so I decided to start up an article, with the hope that someone more in touch with the topics would join in. That hasn't really happened so far but I'm sure it will soon. Again many thanks. All the best,

Fuck.org

Yeah, it was kept at an RFD, but it was a lightly trafficked RFD and nobody put forth a rational reason why we should be keeping redirects to an article where the redirected topic isn't mentioned (and there is no realistic chance it will be anytime soon due to notability and verifiability issues). I PROD'd because I figured it would be rather uncontentious to delete... but I'll just RFD it again when I get around to it. Regards,--Isotope23 ^talk 00:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you know?

How do you know if a category has been empty for 4 days? Carlossuarez46 06:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC) About which category? Good question, though, there seems to be no way to track the history of the contents that I can see, except by looking at an empty one and waiting 4 days. 06:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

MRC article/Chemistry journals

Hi, is it OK if I start amending the Wiley Chemistry journals with the information you gave me for MRC now, the manager is starting to nag. I know it's not 100% perfect yet but I don't think there's any controversial information on there any more that would cause the pages to be taken down. Dchambers101 12:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Beauchamp

I added a secondary source, and there are sure to be others as the day progresses. - Crockspot 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Kotulski

I ultimately decided to speedy keep this as another editor seemed to be helping to approve the article, yet was removing the afd tag. I decided to contact an admin about the possibility of closure, rather than getting an editor in trouble who seemed to be trying to do things in good faith. Just a question though, are the external links at Davina Kotulski okay? I'll still be watching this page for possible cleanup as such. Hope the speedy keep was a good idea. :) -WarthogDemon 20:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the responsibility of the closing admin, who I think did it right. (Technically, one can not withdraw and speedy keep after someone else has said delete.) The references as it stands are marginal--sfgate is not wholly reliable to establish notability and some of the other stuff is her writings or general background or blogs. But real references are alluded to though not specified in the text--I haven't looked for them. If those refs are significant, then she's unquestionably notable. Personally, I would not have brought the AfD. I think the better practice is to give the benefit of the doubt on all such subjects, in order to avoid divisive debates, and to concentrate instead on keeping the articles NPOV. I respect KP Botany's subsequent involvement--an excellent editor. DGG (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Er wait, I'm slightly confused. I removed the speedy tags and placed the afd. Pardon? -WarthogDemon 22:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, I got you confused. I meant THE ADMIN closed it as speedy keep -the afd withdrawn by nominator. Here's what I asked: User_talk:After_Midnight#Davina_Kotulski. -WarthogDemon 22:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see the confusion here. As i said, a reasonable close. DGG (talk)

Thanks. I do apologize for not wording that properly. I kind of did a rush explanation instead of a careful one. I'll be sure to avoid confusion in the future. -WarthogDemon 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA?

I'd nominate you for Admin, if you were not already one! oops, waaay too late..... Anyway, just a cheerful note of appreciation for your good work! Mathmo ^Talk 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Kleb Intermediate School

You voted as a weak keep in the AfD under the condition of sourcing a statement about a girl's suicide. I have done so, along with cleaning up the article a tad. Thought you might want to comment or add to your vote. -- Naruttebayo 05:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Deleted anyway. DGG

How could they have deleted the article on a 4-3 "Delete" vote? That's by no means a consensus. -- Naruttebayo 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability clarification

A week or so ago I posted a follow-up question on an AfD discussion you commented on. If you missed it, I'm still interested in any clarification or elaboration you might have. On the other hand, if you saw it and chose not to respond, I apologize for re-opening the issue and I'll drop it. -- MarcoTolo 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Since this would likely fall under your userpage comment that you have "a very strong dislike for deciding matters by technicalities rather than the merits" (and, in retrospect, my question probably falls into the former), I withdraw the query. Thanks. -- MarcoTolo 02:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't withdraw the question, I'm in the middle of answering it: as you guess, my view is that it does not depend on the wording, but the meaning. It depends on what is being asserted. The way I think of it is that if it is anything that the author of the page could reasonably have thought notable, it escapes speedy. For the article given, the person posting the article could and did reasonably believe that the position of Dean of that school was notable. It isn't, but that was another matter. Anyway, this is a matter that comes up from time to time at WP:CSD talk. My rationale for why it's better this way is that if there is any chance, it's better that the community look--it's more consistent, and it saves time in getting the junk removed fast without needing to discuss it or deal with appeals. DGG (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for the clarification - much appreciated. -- MarcoTolo 03:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your work on IPC articles...

...is extremely commendable, but it is more accurately described as rewriting (if not writing something completely different), not fixing. What, if anything does this have in common with this? That is the fundamental issue that lies at the heart of what I am doing: Every article that I have nominated (under the IPC/trivia campaign) is unsalvageable. Yes, you can rewrite it, but that has nothing to do with the article as it stands. Did that fact that "The late rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard sometimes referred to himself as Osiris" help you find resources about Egyptian themed murals in Indiana? Best to tear down these monstrosities so that good articles can be built. --Eyrian 16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt into DGG's talk page here, but I disagree with you on this, Eyrian. Best to take the article to a forum of collaborative effort, where it can be renamed and rebuilt. Flat deletion will only encourage argument and recreation of these problematic articles. CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Exercise Physiology

Exercise physiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) It seems that the American Society of Exercise Physiologists (or their marketing representatives) may be back, after a short break, attempting to use the above article as free advertising for their organisation. Here is an IP edit that added an introduction to the article (reduced to a stub recently to remove their publicity), the text of which was lifted straight from their website. (Needless to say I reverted that on copyright grounds.) Of course there is insufficient reason as yet to conclude that any COI editing is going on, but given the history of this article I would not be surprised if that occurs. I will be keeping an eye on the article; if anything happens that needs the authority of an admin, I may stop by and ask for help. Thanks for your time! Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lakelands Park Middle School

Hi, please take a look at User:TerriersFan/Lakelands Park Middle School. This page, in an earlier state was deleted in an AfD. Though improved, it probably still doesn't have the necessary secomdary references. Some time ago I merged it into Montgomery County Public Schools but the merge was smartly undone by the AfD nominator. Since then, a concensus has emerged that merging NN schools into their district is a good thing. I don't like edit warring, at least on my own(!), so if I merge again would you be prepared to watch Montgomery County Public Schools and help defend the merge, please? TerriersFan 22:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice

The article still has to be rewritten in English and wikistyle. Geeze, what is with this copy and paste rampage? Thanks. KP Botany 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the fairy shrimp articles marginally, added taxoboxes, and tagged them with a project and one of Wikipedia's better copyeditors, who works on Crustaceans, is working on them, so they're in good hands. They're important endangered species in my neck of the woods, so I like having articles about them, and will see if I get time to work them over a bit, also. I appreciate the notice about these articles. 19:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Slip Ups

Are things like Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization okay if it's from a government site? If so, sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I do hope, however, that my contributions have improved at the least... -WarthogDemon 01:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's part of the US government, it's PD. If it comes via a state site, you should try to find the original. Some states are PD, notably Texas. Some quasi-governmental organisations however are not, and the place to ask is WP:Copyright. If in doubt, it's not a speedy. Use one of the WP:copyright tags. Note this does not apply to the UK-- Crown Copyright is not GFDL compatible. However, it is a rare US page that should be used without editing, and this one is no exception. DGG (talk)

Removing prods

Hi DGG, surprised to see no mention of your recent prod removals in edit summaries. Any reason for this? I appreciate you did more to the articles, but "cleanup, rm prod" would be fair. Deiz talk 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (my mistake--going too fast-DGG)

Discover

Hi, DGG. Please take a look at Talk:Discover Card, and please also compare the differences between Discover Card and Discover Financial. Two separate articles for company and product. I'm working in a sandbox in my user namespace to further improve both articles. Think, as kind of an example, American Express and ExpressPay. Thanks, take care, user:j 07:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they're already considerably different articles. Take a look at the two now. By and large, there is very little duplicate content at this point. But I do think there are a few more things that need to be moved from Discover Card to Discover Financial, I just haven't had a chance to yet. Maybe you're thinking of this revision? Take care, user:j 07:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jónas Aðalsteinsson

Hey, thanks for taking an interest in the above article. Just to let you know I'm going to nominate it for AfD later today, I figured since you removed the wotsit you should be given the heads up. All the article really says is that he is a qualified lawyer, imho. Jdcooper 09:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of blog as source

At your suggestion, I have now built up Tara C. Smith's article to hopefully reach notability, as well as the article about her blog, Aetiology. Do you think these are now reasonable? Do they demonstrate notability? Can I now use them as sources at [3] ? If you think that this is a good source now, would you help me reinstate the citations on the article Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism for me? I have not found other sources, at least yet, because it is pretty obscure so far. If you know of other sources, I would welcome those as well. Thank you. --Filll 20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has disagreed that the general audience, popular nature of the 3 books should be mentioned. They also disagree that the book reviews should be included. They also want to put personal information in the article, such as material about her d.o.b, ethnicity (???), family life, etc. I disagree with this, even though I can put it in there. Possibly the year she was born can be included, but I think the rest is sort of irrelevant. I want to concentrate on her professional career. Comments?--Filll 14:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Missed comment

I was reading through the RfAs and noticed you seem to have missed this comment on RockMFR's RfA. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (remarked on this new comment at the RfA)- DGG

Regarding your comment

I apologize if that is how what I was doing came off as. I was not contesting your job and your need to enforce copyrights (surely this is an essential duty). In fact, I agree with the assessment that his use of copyrighted material was inappropriate, and I think your leniency is admirable. I was most interested in you elaborating in specifics what the problems were. This way, they could be more easily resolved. As was, there was little way for user [email protected] to understand what exactly the problem was, and this is why I replied. Also, I do not think it is good to make edits without supplying the proof of the justification. An authority than maintains the necessary standards is indeed important; however, an authority also needs to be transparent and specific about the problem they are addressing. If not, not only does it seem like a personal attack (even if it is not), but it is frustrating and confusing. Also, please do not take this personally. I do not mean any of this by any means as a personal attack. I just mean these as suggestions.

I have read your profile and I understand that. I appreciate it very much. I think that that kind of openness is essential to intellectual advancement and beneficial to many people.

I understand WP:OWN and WP:COI, and acknowledge their importance and the significance of the issues at large in intellectual endeavors. I have been bedridden for most of the time in which this account has existed, so I have not edited other articles heavily. However, I am interested in doing so, and I think it is important to not restrict oneself just to an area of interest or just to assisting a colleague. I assure you that I will edit other topics and articles in the future. I will start doing so as soon as possible. However, I also believe it is important to act in a timely manner, especially when dealing with copyright issues, which are serious and sensitive issues. This is especially true on Wikipedia, where their resolution is extremely important in terms of the credibility of the medium. Though, regardless they are important. Intellectual property should not be infringed upon.

What else I have to say is that I do not think you should not act hastily in the present situation. You have indeed been patient so far, but I am afraid that with all the editing work you do you may be compelled to finish this sooner than is best in the name of efficiency (this is most likely just because of my prior experience on the internet. You seem to be very devoted though, so it is most likely a false fear). I have talked to user [email protected], and it seems that he understands all the intellectual issues involved in why his postings are disputed, but is confused due to the the way the information way presented and some degree of difficultly in understanding how Wikipedia works. I believe he has said this himself in one of his posts (He is new to posting and has said so). Due to his current troubles with Wikipedia he has had some degree of difficultly understanding what to do, as well as trouble understanding literally where and how to place his edits. I think it would not be of benefit to Wikipedia and in the interests of anyone hoping to maintain the accuracy or appropriateness of information on Wikipedia (or in general) to censor him based on him not having perfect understanding of how Wikipedia works.

I am sure you will understand this and I know you understand the importance of working to include more. I have simply been hoping that you understand that I also am interested in this goal. I think in this case, it is important that you be patient and assist this user as much as you can. There is no reason that the worthy information he posts should be lost.

On that note, could you please continue to assist him, as well as assist him in other issues? For example, I believe he needs help regarding his article on Society for Quantitative Analysis of Behavior. His response is valid, but it is in the wrong place (actually, I see that good assistance has already come, but any further assistance would always be helpful).

I believe there was some degree of misunderstanding here, and while it is unfortunate, I believe we have made progress in resolving it through this communication.

Nikurasu (Nikurasu) 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

One addition: if I did not say it in there, I am also all for the heavy editing, of course. I was not taking exception to that.

Nikurasu (Nikurasu) 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:[email protected]

Just a quick note about this user, the account was created in 2006 and is therefore not blockable under WP:U, I looked it up when I saw the copyvios he was creating ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I was wondering how many total edits and how many name/mainspace edits you had when you applied for your RfA? I was thinking about pursuing one this coming year. Elenseel 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) I never kept track, & I waited until someone nominated me. It's more the quality of work that matters: the extent to which it shows knowledge of policy, ability to discussion issues involving conflict calmly and productively, and in most people's opinion, enough contributions to mainspace to show what's involved in writing articles. Anti-vandal activity is important, but not by itself enough. If someone is going to be able to delete and block indepedently, they have to demonstrate they know when to do it. DGG (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Marduk AFD

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

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

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

one guy

Hi DGG–is it a case of good-editor (Filll) and a bad-day? I got my 'apology'. Anyhow, regards Fred ☻ 16:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

unlinked

• There is a stream of personal attack against me on the users page. Please address the thuggery displayed by the users. I don't think there is anything I can add at this point, my 15 words and a question has generated an archive full of tirade. Please help to make this a pleasant working environment. Thankyou. Fred ☻ 04:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Grieg's music in popular culture

I did a lot of work on this one. Hopefully I have saved it from the Visigoths, as per the Heymann standard. Bearian 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC). Good job - DGG

Vistas High School

The article has been renamed correctly as Vistas High School Program. There is a discussion on a possible merge to its parent article at Klein ISD Merge. Your input is welcome. – Dreadstar † 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good faith comment, I'm not trying to kill the article - never was. Today, I actually took the time to call Peggy Ekster, the Director of the Vistas High School Program. I chatted with her about the article and she confirmed that there was no school named "Vistas High School", just as my research had shown. These snide little comments, like "nice try", are just bad faith..and don't reflect on the work I did to check all this out. Thanks! – Dreadstar † 23:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

just think of it as practice for the next time. My own batting average is about 0.250 :) DGG (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot Mistake

I was about to fix it myself but decided it might be nicer to let you know that you accidentally forgot to write out that this optional question: [4] is from you. :) -WarthogDemon 23:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grieg's music in popular culture

Thank you for your kind comments in this discussion. Bearian 01:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance proposal

Hi. Can I ask you to offer your thoughts on WP:RELEVANCE? It's a careful and ongoing attempt to cut a middle path on the subject of "trivia", among other things. Much obliged.--Father Goose 09:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cat: P's from C

.. had 8 entries when I last checked it about 16 hours ago. Still not impressive, just in case you want to refactor your comment before someone says "Aha! It has 8 entries and is therefore essential to WP!". Deiz talk 07:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Marshman

Thank you for your "comment 2" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Marshman. It was a very constructive way of pointing out that some of my comments were a bit personal, and you are entirely right in that. Thank you for not just "telling me off"! I appreciate your approach. BonzoBabe 10:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Input needed

Hi, DGG. Great to be able to call upon the expertise of a librarian. Someone added PLoS to WP:EXRS. I thought maybe it was a worthy addition, but tried to reword it so that it better suited the instructive nature of this guideline. It would be great if you could determine whether this statement is an acceptable addition to this guideline and whether PLoS is a good example. See [5]. Thanks. TimidGuy 16:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Input needed 2

I have written Earlbaum associates for permission. I do not understand what to do with it once I get it. How do use a GFDL license?

User:mlcommons 19:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC) What article are you asking about? As a general answer, see WP:Copyright. DGG (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your participation in recent AfDs involving lists, and given your track record for neutrality and diplomacy, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this conversation has moved to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines. I look forward to your continued input in order to reach a consensus on the issue! Sidatio 00:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. I have a lot of respect for you from encountering you at AfD, and it meant a lot to me to see your support. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

DGG by David Shankbone

NYC

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

I've seen you around a bit, thought I'd say hello

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

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your participation in recent AfDs involving lists, and given your track record for neutrality and diplomacy, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this conversation has moved to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines. I look forward to your continued input in order to reach a consensus on the issue! Sidatio 00:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD notification proposal

Hi DGG. You do not need to change policy to have people notified about AfD. You might want to contact the developer of User:Android Mouse Bot 2 to see if s/he can create an Android Mouse Bot 3 to post the AfD notifications using stats from Wikipedia Page History Statistics. If you check out my contributions, you'll see that I am in the process of manually using Wikipedia Page History Statistics to add AfD warnings to those AfDs listed at the bottom of the August 13th AfD list. I also add {{Welcome!|-- [[User_talk:Jreferee|Jreferee]]}} to their talk page if they are new. I utilize Microsoft Word to assist me in all this. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that happens is the article itself sometimes is not tag for deletion even though the article is listed at AfD. See this, for example. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedies

Sorry, was probably going a bit too quickly with that one. I'd never heard of Lazard before and it looked like a standard vanity bio so assumed it was. I'll take more care in future. Readro 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

honors

SCPM08...also not sure where to post my message. not sure why the article i created, thematic option honors program, was deleted. i went through the program, so i feel a particular affinity for the article about it. it says copyright violation, but i wrote the article based on what i know about it, and using two sources (which were cited). thanks.

Wohl

tweety21 ...sorry not sure where to post my message..thanks for help regarding article: Arden Wohl...but how does this process work? how long before editors decide or not to restore..thanks

Oldbury College of Sport

I created the page whilst templating many other West Midlands school. The page is only a stub I agree and I obtained the directory information to start the article. I believe that it is just as notable as any other West Midlands secondary comprehensive, it just needs time to develop. CR7 (message me) 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that point needs to be brought up at WikiProject Schools though. If some-one chooses to do a vast AfD on school pages I imagine it will be sorted then, but there are hundred that would need to be merged together or nominated for deletion. CR7 (message me) 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've filled the article with more information and references, in your opinion will this save it from proposed deletion? Please take a look and drop me a line; thanks, CR7 (message me) 17:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

RE WP:CANVASS...I didn't realize there was a no canvass rule on wikipedia, and that being excited about promoting an article was bad. I was just so excited about the potential of the article becoming better in a short time frame, that I thought those with an interest in Universities would also be excited about an anniversary year. Ah well. Also RE WP:MEATPUPPET, I have not asked folks to join any WP or wikipedia with the purpose of voting, if they want to join a WP becuase they like the subject as an interest of their own, then that is their decision. It doesn't do anyone any good for someone to join a WP if they have no excitement/interest/knowledge in that WP subject. Thanks for the heads up, there are so many rules on wikipedia, and I am still fairly new to all of this. Can't read all the rules, as there are so many, so diverse, and so many different places. SriMesh | talk 02:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

re:Miss Teen World United States Pageant

I nominated it for CSD, because this was the state that if found it in, [6], also the ip who made most of the edits has been linked to a sock, and doing a google search for this pageant and related news articles bought up around 1-2 results one being the website itself. anyway thanks and I will see if it will bite at AFD.--Kerotan^Talk Have a nice day :) 07:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for your note about the Tanglewood Symposium. It is an important event in music education so I felt it deserved it's own article and I'll try and revise it.

I'm a music educator and fairly current in my profession in graduate level study and I've noticed that people are posting their own methodologies and approaches that may be self published or web published but really have no basis for inclusion in the 'music education' main article. I've tagged content only to have it removed. How do I best approach resolving this? The problem is with article content not the whole article, so I can't propose it for deletion to reach some consensus, or can I?Rickyar 11:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Crime Classification manual

I see you point about merging the articles. However I think the examples given in the crime are important because they allow the person to see the difference between the types of classifications of each crime. Either way the article is not totally finished. Do you have a copy of the CCM? If so some help finishing this article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for taking an interest. Jmm6f488 16:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason each link is there, is that the way the CCM works is it takes a crime that is an example of the classification and walks the reader (who would normally be a police detective) through the crime scene. The crimes themselves are the central part of each classification. The description of each crime is only secondary to the analysis of each crime. Jmm6f488 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks, the problem I'm having is that I'm not really an expert on criminology, also I only have the CCM not the second version what the whole set of articles need is someone with both and that has a very good understanding of law enforcement profiling and protocol. Jmm6f488 19:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can go ahead and delete the article on the CCM 2nd edition and just mention that it has been revised if you want to I'm not going to remove the delete tag and I don't think anyone will care. Jmm6f488 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Working page

No problem, sorry about that. NawlinWiki 02:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for defending me(and the others) in ANI, was weird to see my name on there, kinda disheartening, but meh, all good, the comment was posted while I was home sleeping so glad someone else took the time to look into it and say something. Dureo 05:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox deletion

Hi, sorry for asking but I saw your comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Childhoodsend/Balance check, which was seconded by the only other admin to vote on the issue. Radiant then came in and closed the debate with a deletion result. I am not familiar with these processes, but do you think it's fair? --Childhood's End 13:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC) replied with advice. DGG

Eric J. Dale

Yeah, I figured it was headed to that anyway, but thought I'd follow the "chain of deletion procedures" another step up the lasser first. I'll AfD it now. Thanks. Realkyhick 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Now at Afd, on its way out. - DGG

=Re: speedy tag

I have declined to delete International Academy for the Promotion of Scientific Research as the article makes clear assertions of importance. Speedy is only when there is nothing said to indicate importance--if you think it insufficient, use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. DGG (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you say so, but I don't see any assertion of importance. The article doesn't even say what the group is or does! There's a list of seemingly notable members with fancy titles but that's about it. Precious Roy 16:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have had some dealings with Mr Lindgren, who is the dominant individual in the group. As a lawyer I am particularly careful about saying - or writing - anything too contentious, but in my opinion the "International Academy for the Promotion of Scientific Research" has no real existence as a learned society and is little more than a device to publicise the founders' writings. I support deleting it, and the sooner the better.Ncox 01:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

you may quite possibly be correct, but then it should be via AfD. There is a difference between being notable and the mere assertion of notability. Any plausible assertion is enough, the classic examples that do not count being , "I am king of the world" or i won an Olympic medal at the age of 11, or He is the greatest guitar player ever. I'll look for it at Afd. That's where suspected hoaxes etc belong. DGG (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hans Georg Herzog

Okay. - CobaltBlueTony 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mustafa Kamil (academic)

I am not very knowledgeable about Admin procedures, but you removed my {{hangon}} from the above page with a comment that sounded like youw ere saying that page should ""NOT be a candidate for deletion? Or was it that it can be "speedily" decided that my request to take it off that list does not have merit...? --iFaqeer 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He's saying that the request for speedy deletion was declined because of the asserted notability. If someone wants that article to be deleted, they will have to go through other channels, but speedy deletion is off the table. DGG, sorry for shamelessly watching your talk page. Antelan ^talk 04:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(what actually happened is that 1/ someone placed a speedy 2/ the bot sent a notice 3/ I removed the speedy 4/the author responding to the notice placed a hangon without noticing that the speedy wasn't there any longer 5/ since the hangon put it back in Category:CSD for speediy I removed the hangon 6/ the author thought I was reinstating the speedy. Procedure conflict, due to the speed at which things happen. The reason hangon put it back in speedy is that authors often remove the speedy when they place the hangon--contrary to instructions--so the category is programmed to recognize hangon as well as speedy.) Anyone is welcome to watch here and comment here. I hope you'll see some interesting things. DGG (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! As a first step, I am in the process of trying to get access to a full-length biography of Aga Khan IV, so we can have a reference from a published work.

--iFaqeer 05:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Asmik Macagee

It's more than a hoax, it's someone's joke that has somehow survived for more than half a year. Nothing on Google and I'm Bulgarian, I know something about our royal family — there's no Asmik Macagee. The name given in Bulgarian Cyrillic (just before the "birth date") means "Queen Sinister". Do we really have to wait 5 days? Todor→Bozhinov 15:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV

Hello. I saw your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 15#Category:Converts from Judaism, and responded to them. May I trouble you to reply at your convenience? Thanks! -- Avi 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your comments, even if I do not agree with them. -- Avi 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Schools Proposal

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

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

DRV: Crimson_Editor

Hi, I see that you also favor a relist of Crimson_Editor. I wonder if you would userfy the article to me, please? What I want to do is produce a clean, sourced version so that if it is relisted, it can be moved across so that editors comment on the sourced version, rather than the old one. Bridgeplayer 03:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for userfying. I see the problem; there is a lot of useful stuff there but it needs a good reworking. I'll produce a clean version tomorrow night and announce it, when ready, at the DRV. Bridgeplayer 04:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Summit499's articles re. Summit Rock personnel

I have a few issues with these which is why I tagged them speedy:

• Possible copyvios from the company website; however since access is not available to the general public if you look, it leads me to suspect that the information is internal-access only (e.g. look at the username Summit499) or promotional in nature - look at how they are written up.
• Notability of the company (Summit Rock Advisors) hasn't been established yet (Google search only yields 9 hits); therefore, the bios on key personnel aren't notable either.

BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome onboard !

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

Dental software

Thanks; I didn't know that template existed. Maybe there should be a speedy-template for tables. --Orange Mike 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Prods

There is no clear notability std for British footballers, so rather than taking unilateral action and just say 5 days have passed and deleting them, it is better to bring them to afd and let those whose standards differ on their notability hash it out. Or would you support prod deletes in areas of questionable notability areas? Carlossuarez46 21:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, it's still a learning experience - and I do welcome your critiques and questions. Even though we often disagree I still admire you - your civility and willingness to discuss things constructively are rare indeed. For better and worse there are enough gray areas that if we put things into afd perhaps they'll become clearer. Still let me know if you find a German article wanting translation - I did a Spanish one recently incorrectly tagged A2 (it didn't have a counterpart on es.wiki). Carlossuarez46 21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'll keep that in mind next time, I also considered doing all of the football (soccer) people together but those group noms tend not to find consensus one way or another. You working your way through the speedies? Carlossuarez46 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance mediation

If you'd like to join the mediation, I believe you should post a formal acceptance of the case's mediator at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-16 Relevance of content#Mediator notes so that the case can get under way. Thanks.--Father Goose 04:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spells in Harry potter

It is currently under a deletion review. Therequiembellishere 17:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of schools

I should welcome your comments on User:TerriersFan/Schools that should be made on the talk page of that page. To start the ball rolling I'm alerting you and User:Alansohn but views from anyone else are, of course, welcome. TerriersFan 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

True origins

I made some clarification on the definition of the aims of the project after some good input from some editors passing by, I also added links to the banners and created a page of guidelines to reliable sources. I think that the aims are more clear now but I could really appreciate your opinion when you have the time, I am going now and come back tomorrow, no hurry. If you think it should be reverted to how it was before please let me know, you have abundant experience Thanks Jenny^Len 00:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Todd J. Henry

As an admin, you of all people should be aware that a person creating a page about himself and providing a link to his own website constitutes a pretty unarguable db-spam. So, despite the fact that you've removed it, I've reposted the speedy deletion template. Smashville 05:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Van Kretschmar

I did not write it, but why was this article deleted. I know personamlly that the information is true and correct. User:Valpam5 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:29:37, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Blatent BLP violations. Unsourced. DGG (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Q-ships

Thanks for your support and encouragement, though I believe that deletion is a sure thing now. Playground politicking and lawyering isn't what attracts me to Wikipedia, so I've never had to face this clique of users before, I really don't know how anyone can convince them from their self appointed mission. Live and let live just doesn't seem to be in their nature.KTo288 14:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC) advice on your talk page. -DGG

what wikipedia is not

In response to your recent non-deletion of world's largest airlines I ask you, what's the point of having what wikipedia is not, if it doesn't define what wikipedia is not? Pdbailey 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Some lists are encyclopedic, some are not encyclopedic. We'll see what the community thinks on this one, that's what AfD is for. DGG.

could you help me reformat it and reopen it? I thought I had used the template right but was apparently unable to get it to work. I was looking to object based on, WP:NOT#STATS which reads, "Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists."Pdbailey 16:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can repost it for you, but I urge to to reconsider. It did get listed at AfD, but without a reason given--and in consequence, it was speedy-kept. But it was kept not only because of that but because of the comments of several other editors besides myself--and good editors-- about the merit of the article. Consider that it was already in the form of several structured tables, and a key word in the paragraph you quote is "may". Many such tables should be and are deleted--and I have voted to delete in many instances-- but some are kept. This is, quite honestly, one of the better ones. Even if you disagree, it is not really that likely to get deleted. See the discussion.DGG (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw only two editors comment on the merits that I was criticizing, and I think the lack of reason was harmful. I just relisted it and BillCJ took it off claiming that you can't relist. I see no ground for not giving me 24 hours to give a reason since I'm not an anon editor and assume good faith would appear to suggest i be given a chance, but the good faith assumption appears to be out the window (I'm not trying to imply that you are not assuming good faith, you have been an exemplary editor on this topic). Pdbailey 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. Now I hope the process can run it's course and if it's a "keep," at least the nomination will have had a reason to consider and the discussion will have been allowed 5 days. Pdbailey 17:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm still having a hard time with this, and since your an admin, I figure you probably know what I should be doing. First, does it matter that it isn't listed on the page after it was removed? Second, did I list it right on it's page [7] and on the articles for deletion page [8]? Thanks for any help! Pdbailey 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I figured it out the linking amongst the deletion pages for myself, sorry to bother you. Pdbailey 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and now another editor re-added the link to the deletion discussion, so that's taken care of too. FYI, I asked you a question over at the deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest airlines (2nd nomination). I mention because I don't think it's typical, but I don't know. Pdbailey 13:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello colleague

Hello there ! I was away sorry for the delay in responding. Thanx for the welcoming message and information, glad to find another "filing sufferer" around . I have been around a bit and is fully comprehensible (the wiki environment I mean) You see many incidents though. But I think I manage myself. Tell me something, how I make a nice signature ? I mean nice but keeping the level, not toons kind , just code it up or ? Let me know if I can be of assistance at any time, I have some acces to real antiques (books not people) See ya around Librarian2 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC) See WP:User. (but you need to know some elementary html markup). or tell me what you want to do--I'm not an expert, but I can do simple things. Incidentally, I am really a filing sufferer--I am the last certified instructor at Princeton for the filing rules in the old AACR1 card catalog. DGG (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! You are really a filing-sufferer. (even if I love that feeling of paper more than the screens) (for the first 5 minutes that is). About the signature, whatever makes me find my postings fast in a chain, any ideas ? (Yeah, ctrl-f right ?) Librarian2 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot you told me about the username similarity right? I have no problems with that but if you prefer I change it (I am the new one here I yield for the experienced elders) Just let me know how I do that Librarian2 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello colleague 2

Do you feel like a Librarian today? If you do, give a look at WP:KIS and let me know if you have someone in mind who could have the time to code the most used labels (languages and most known projects). Also I have a problem with the box for the labels, I don't know what code to enter for the labels display horizontally inside the box instead of vertically. If you don't feel like a librarian today, that is fine also, we file it for another time ℒibrarian2 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The box problem is solved, I made instead a rail kind of thing where the labels go (makes you remember something?) I like it better anyway. But the need of someone as I said above is still actual ℒibrarian2 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Benoit

I did not put that tag or reason on the article - I just restored the existing proposed deletion tag because someone had simply removed it without explanation, in addition to turning the article into nonsense by messing with the formatting. Check out the version before my revert and you'll see what I mean. - Special-T 01:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Yes I see, the history got rather hard to decipher. Feel free to delete my comment. If you want it semi-protected from anons, let me know. DGG (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, I have no opinion on that - I just stumbled on this mess of crazy editing and tried to untangle it the best I could. - Special-T 02:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A question for you: User Cats

This is not intended to be as nasty as it will sound, so please keep that disclaimer in mind when I ask you:

Have you ever voted to delete a user category?

As I said, I am not trying to attack you, or to impugn your motives, but I cannot ever recall you advocating the deletion of a user category in UCfD, and I have seen you support the retention of some categories that I simply cannot fathom any possible value in retaining (which speaks to a fundamental difference in our philosophies). Do you believe that there are user categories that should not exist, or are you of the belief that almost anything goes, short of outright attacks towards others? I really am curious, because while I generally believe in deletion of marginal cats, I sometimes vote to keep them, because I see collaborative potential in them. I'm curious if the reverse is true for you. Horologium t-c 03:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• I accept your question as reasonable, and I never think it wrong for someone to ask me to justify what I do. Normally at UCfD there are almost unanimous votes for deletion of most of the categories. I don;t see the point of piling on. Nor do I vote to keep all or even most.--I vote on very few where there is in my opinion some chance of making a difference or at least a protest. For example, most of the language merges this weekend to group xxx-1,2,3,and 4 into xxx are very good ideas, but my support is hardly needed--they will go through if nobody objects.

If you will look at my user page, i list myself in very very few, and only those which I think necessary for the sort of work I do. For example, I know some foreign languages a bit, but anyone who relies on me for translation would not be well advised. Others can decide differently. The longer I'm here, the more tolerant of other people I become--I thought I was pretty much so before, but I have really had my eyes opened to my limitations, one of the great things about WP.

There is no easy way to see my contributions on specific topics--enWP hasnt activated that feature, so I can't check my record. I think I have said to delete in a few cases of really unpleasantly divisive politically nationalistic categories and the like, but there seem to be almost none of them left. There is a difference in our overall approach--I would only eliminate those that need to be eliminated, and keep all the others. I ask you, why not? There's more overhead in running UCfD than in having the excess categories.

this is very much of a side issue for me--my main concern is keeping article content of interest to small groups but not actually harmful. So it's sort of a by-product. At AfD also, my !votes are keep about 4 to 1, though perhaps 80% of the stuff that goes there needs deletion--it gets deleted perfectly well without me, and I'd rather work on the items that need work one way or another. DGG (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I had noted your selective participation in discussions, but was not sure if there was a pattern, or if you only discussed categories for which you had strong feelings. I confine myself to UCfD (for the most part) because I find the other discussions to become deletionist/inclusionist wars; cleaning up user cats is far less binary than that, and improves the clarity and ease of navigation when trying to find appropriate categories. (It's a lot easier to find what one is looking for in a list of 20 appropriate categories, as opposed a list of 100—20 appropriate categories, 20 frivolous categories, 20 support/oppose categories, 20 categories that focus on a single subject or aspect of a subject, and 20 that belong elsewhere in the user cat tree.) That last is a big sticking point for me, as there are too many categories that are subcats of multiple parents, which is a good idea in article space, but less so in user space. The recent discussion about the programming categories is an example; those languages are in Category:Wikipedians by language, Category:Wikipedians by software and Category:Wikipedians by skill. I'll stop now, before this becomes an expository on your page. (smile) Horologium t-c 13:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rationalizing category trees, in user space or mainspace, is one thing I very much support. The problem of organizing things here is substantial, and the current efforts inadequate. When I came here I thought that as a librarian I'd work on it a little, but my priorities developed differently. Your example is interesting--what I would do is put it into one of them with cross references from the other. I'll support moves like that. Frankly, I am in favor of support/oppose when it relates to WP questions, though I have been known to list myself on both sides. My views on politics and the like are changing--I think I'm getting more supportive of forthright declarations of biases and allegiances. DGG (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for disclosing biases; my userpage clearly spells out (both in prose and through a userbox) where my political views lie, and I also disclose (via prose and userboxen) where I live and have lived, where I have visited, what language I speak, a few of my views on grammar, and what job I held for 20 years. However, with the exception of the bare-bones language (not a regional cat, just "English") and location (nation and state) cats, I don't have user cats for all of that (and in fact I edited one of my userboxes to eliminate the cat, and nominated a group of cats associated with one of the other userboxes for deletion). Part of that is another personal trait: I prefer to be identified as an individual, not as a member of some larger group. If someone wants to contact me for editorial collaboration, I want it to be based on my contributions, not an arbitrary membership of a group. However, I am not hostile to the concept of others using such group identifications as they see fit; I just want to keep it manageable and rational. Horologium t-c 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I personally use almost none, except sometimes to highlight a particular WikiProject. My reasons are pretty much the same as yours. DGG (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article

Is it possible to get a copy of the tect that was in the article "Rachel Murray" before it was deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlawrence 11 (talk • contribs) 06:12, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Psychic Surgery article

Hello. I jsut want an opinion. In the Psychic surgery article on which we are working from the WP:TORIG and from the WP:MED, a sysop protected the page because the debate was too much. That is good because they were really exagerating, but the problem is that she freezed it in a point in which it has many and wide iaccuracies from the WP:TORIG scope, the med part is not so much problem. Now, I left that sysop a message explaining the situation and commenting which version could be reverted to for leaving protected until the end of dispute but with the less inaccuracies possible, it was a point at which everyone was collaborating before they started to go amok. Nevertheless, the sysop doesn't reply or so something, and the article is there boasting inacurracies and protected. How can I proceed without challenging the protection for the article is left in a less inaccurate previous version and then stay protected until they decide what they want ?Jenny^Len 15:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the differences matter that much, since the article does need a more drastic rewriting & I see no really good previous version. The point of protection in an edit war is not to freeze it in a good state, but to stop the edit war by making everyone wait a few days. Why not try to write a good lede paragraph on the talk page, and then ask for unblocking? I'll make a comment there about what I think the paragraph should be like. It's better to ask admins to reverse themselves when there is something new to show. DGG (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your opinion and guidance Jenny^Len 09:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello colleague

Hello there ! I was away sorry for the delay in responding. Thanx for the welcoming message and information, glad to find another "filing sufferer" around . I have been around a bit and is fully comprehensible (the wiki environment I mean) You see many incidents though. But I think I manage myself. Tell me something, how I make a nice signature ? I mean nice but keeping the level, not toons kind , just code it up or ? Let me know if I can be of assistance at any time, I have some acces to real antiques (books not people) See ya around Librarian2 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC) See WP:User. (but you need to know some elementary html markup). or tell me what you want to do--I'm not an expert, but I can do simple things. Incidentally, I am really a filing sufferer--I am the last certified instructor at Princeton for the filing rules in the old AACR1 card catalog. DGG (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gosh! You are really a filing-sufferer. (even if I love that feeling of paper more than the screens) (for the first 5 minutes that is). About the signature, whatever makes me find my postings fast in a chain, any ideas ? (Yeah, ctrl-f right ?) Librarian2 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot you told me about the username similarity right? I have no problems with that but if you prefer I change it (I am the new one here I yield for the experienced elders) Just let me know how I do that Librarian2 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CSA Trust and "2 users"

The "two users" remark was in response to the entry by User:Steinbeck, who said, "If only two people in the world want to learn about either the village festival or the CSA Trust through looking at their Wikipedia article, the existence of these articles is justified." Obviously, I don't agree. Realkyhick 17:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: TORIG

DGG, I'm not sure if you saw my reply to your question regarding the True Origins project; here's a link to it. I hope it at least speaks to the gist of your inquiry. Antelan ^talk 03:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello DGG, I accidentally saw your message to Antelan. She did not created the project, Daoken did and he is nothing of "Paranormal" he has to do with organizations mostly just that he probably has been so busy setting up the whole thing that is not editing for TORIG yet. Anyhow, your comment was a good call I think, I left the following message at TORIG:

I have seen a comment from a respected sysop that True Origins seems to be focusing in some areas. Obviously not, as I can see open tasks as far as "Road", "SpaceFlight", "Takemusu", "Water Memory", and medical articles. Perhaps because more resistance has been found on "paranormal" related articles, was more concentration on those ones or perhaps because many members have medical backgrounds there was some focus on medicine related articles. This is not abnormal at all and time must be given as obviously each member edits better in his/her own areas of expertise. Just an early warning call to open the targeting scope a bit more guys, this is a very important and interesting project and many will dislike us because we will challenge their legitimacy when not well referenced so be ready for some bad reactions and don't give any reason for been seen in any other way than neutral and multidisciplinary. Just wanted to say my opinion Jenny^Len 09:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello DGG. I am who created the True origins WikiProject, remember that I welcomed you ? The project is truly multidisciplinary, there is not a preference for any area. It may seem that "Paranormal" articles have more resistance to be challenged to provide accurate information and therefore those editions may call more attention. It also happens that a few of our members are of an specific background and have tendency to revise articles within their fields, that is a normal tendency but nothing that I can see it needs more addressing of what Jennylen has already done. I appreciate your opinion and hope you start to actively participate soon Daoken 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to see there are some more ambitious plans. I suggest you not use the word challenge in any context. You are simply out to improve the content of some complicated articles so it shows more accurately the history and nature of the topic discussed. BTW, I'm not sure you picked the best name. "true origins" is so non-descriptive that it might be thought to imply some sort of a hidden agenda. I'm trying to think of a better, but it will of course imply my own view of what 'sneeded. This should now be continued at the project talk page. DGG (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There are not plans, but already realities :) Challenge is one of the many abused words unfortunately, what it means is not what you seem to understand, each time you ask for something, you are challenging for an answer, maybe my profession carries me to use words in another meaning than you are used to, anyhow, it is not a word I use at discretion and widely but only in conversation with whom I think is a friendly party.

I know perfectly what the project is about, it is simply about improving the accuracy of historical references and claims,and if possible to promote the use of such citations, simple and straight. True origins is so descriptive that scares some because they assume it is too penetrating, and they wonder why?

The true origin of something cannot be more direct and easy to understand, it is simply the true origin of something nothing too complicated or obscure.

I would like to know the reason why you joined, is it for a better look or for curiosity or for actively be involved? I was waiting for you become an active member but instead I see a different attitude, it sincerely surprises me.

I invite you to exchange ideas at the talk page of the project as you proposed, I replied here for the sake of continuance, now we can meet there when you may feel for visiting. Thank you for your opinion, it is always welcome. Daoken 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Afterthought: What you say seems to tell me that you have not been at the project for awhile, please do visit and read all the info.Daoken 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

comment--will comment there, but I think something is necessary here. I joined for two reasons--first, because I am very interested in improving the accuracy of the material on traditional academic subjects, including history. Second, because I often join maintenance projects to see what is going on--I have (like others) joined projects aimed at inclusionism and at deletionism, because both approaches have merit but can be taken too far. Sometime I can help coordinate the work with what is going on elsewhere. In practice the articles I work on are those immediately challenged at AfD--and the procedure there is unfortunately very much a challenge. If I have more time. I look at some newly submitted ones of interest to try to get a least minimal sourcing. And I try to work on a few where there are interesting discussions of he nature of sourcing, or where I otherwise can make some particular conribution. I do wish I had time to do much more actual writing in article space about the things that interest me, rather than rescue.And there are some specific things I can help with. But to some extent Im here to give advice, such as that your definition of primary and secondary sources is totally discordant with the one at WP:RS. Anyone who does not like my suggestions tis free to ignore them. My advice is that in general in pays to go very slowly and carefully with new projects. DGG (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

CSA Trust and "2 users"

The "two users" remark was in response to the entry by User:Steinbeck, who said, "If only two people in the world want to learn about either the village festival or the CSA Trust through looking at their Wikipedia article, the existence of these articles is justified." Obviously, I don't agree. Realkyhick 17:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

email

My email has now been added cheers

Mlawrence 11 13:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Sent. If re-added, you will be blocked. DGG (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: AfDs

The reason that I have icons on my AfD comments is because I use AfD Helper, and I have now turned off the icon feature. I'm sorry for any inconveniences, and thank you. Jonjonbt 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Name change

If we change the name of the project following your recommendation, do we need to create all from scratch again or there is any way to just substitute the name and get on with it? Please get back ASAP at the talk page, I am working on it now but not for long Daoken 23:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, better reply to my talk page so I get the popup 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Daoken

WP:TORIG is now WP:TIMETRACE

WikiProject True Origins WP:TORIG is now WikiProject Timeline Tracer WP:TIMETRACE also WP:TIMET. This follows many opinions that teh previous name of the project could confuse or provide negative feelings in some users. Daoken 02:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

good choice.DGG (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks hope it serves well Daoken 02:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

fring article

Hi There DGG,

Please could you let me know how to make the article that i am trying to add User:Goplett/fring so that it is not viewed as spam, i am not the original author of this article and i feel that although someone abused the wiki system it is not fair to never allow the article to come back in a good version, please look at the article i have made and let me know how i can edit it so it can work. regards simon pls reply in my talk page. Goplett 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (adequate reply there by another ed. --DGG)

non-refernced biographies

Please see my rationale here.

You stated: "Several other editors have noticed similar articles prodded without justification."

After reading my rationale above, could you please tell me how you can say that I don't have justification?

You also stated: "being the member of a national team in any sport is notable". Again, I'm not questioning notabilty. Anyone can put an article up here stating that "Joe Blow" is a member of the Antartic National Volleyball team. My issue is - if it's so - then prove it. Theoretically I could put up an article tomorrow claiming that I'm a member of the US National Ski team, unsourced, and that's OK? A person coming to Wikipedia for facts shouldn't have to be going to a dozen other sources to prove what's on a page here. The source should be in the article itself.

You stated: "Unreferenced is quite clearly not a reason for deletion, either by prof or afd or any other method."

This statement goes directly against Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and specifically Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. "Unsourced' or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." You may point out this is simply for "contentious" material, however "contentious" doensn't just mean controversial, it can also mean "contested", "the ability to being contested" (or in a broader sense,; litigated; litigious; having power to decide controversy).

You stated: The criterion is "unsourcable", not unsourced. Please see WP:Deletion policy.

If you're referring to "content not verifiable in a reliable source" I beleive that the others that refer specifically to biographical articles (as above) give more detailed and specific rationale that states quite clearly that for biographies the cirterion is "verifiable sources".

You stated: "the rationale for proposed deletion is an article which clearly would be deleted if taken to afd, but which you think nobody is working on or will defend."

WP:DP "An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. These pages can be deleted by any administrator if, after five days, nobody objects to the proposed deletion." I do believe that these pages obviously voilate several policies & guidelines and should not be herein. The prod gives the author & others ample time to correct the lack of sources.

You stated: "The thing to do with articles lacking references is to try to find references for them..."

I again refer you here

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons clearly states, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia... rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." It's not the reader's responsibility (or mine) to go and research articles for verifiability and sources - it's the editor (or article creator). SkierRMH 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember that I deprodded only a few of your tags. For almost all, which were articles that I thought clearly would not make it, I left them--and would have tagged them myself. I also mention that I was by no means the only one disagreeing with some of those tags.

I doubt we will convince each other, so I'll save the detailed arguments for a more public place. But to put it simply, I do not think the consensus at WP agrees with your interpretations. And why should it? How does it improves the encyclopedia to delete instead of source when sourcing is trivial? Such tagging simply makes more work for everyone. Basic sourcing is usually rather quick for most contemporary subjects. I always thought it part of my obligation here as an editor is not to try to delete or to keep articles on the basis of formal details, but to see if the subject of the article was in fact likely to be notable and sourceable. Despite what some think, my aim is not to keep as much as possible, but to do in each case what was appropriate for the ultimate content of WP. My deletion log shows I am not the least reluctant to delete as an admin--I remove several hundred a month. Yes, the rules are sufficiently contradictory that one can play a Wizards' duel, otherwise known as wikilawyering, countering each rule with an opposite. There are after all a great many articles for which with ingenuity one could find an acceptable reason either to delete, or to keep. The main principle--more fundamental than any of the other policies-- is that we are here to build an encyclopedia. Often that means deleting clearly unencyclopedic material. But for subjects that might be acceptable, it means keeping the articles and adding sources. Deletion is the last resort. DGG (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your message on the talk page for IP 75.5.237.217

Heloo DGG. I just thought that I would let you know that the message that you left on this anon IP talk page has been blanked. A quick look at this IP's edit history leads me to believe that it is a sockpuppet of User:Biggspowd who has been blocked before and also claims to have left wikipedia. The main clue that they are the same is their need to remove the fact that people were smokers from many biography pages. I am letting you and User:The Parsnip! (who has dealt with this editor before) know about this. If there is some other page that you would like me to post this info on please let me know. Thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I saw your message on User:The Parsnip! discussion page. I understand that many of this IP's edits are okay but my question is that if this is a sockpuppet of a user whose block has not yet expired shouldn't they be blocked no matter what their edit history is? The IP is from Grand Rapids MI, if you have the ability to check where User:Biggspowd edits from and it turns out to be the same city wouldn't that warrant a block per Parsnips posting here [9]. I will admit that when I get into the policy pages that my eyes sometimes blur over so if I am wrong in this assumption my apologies and thanks again for looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 20:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize right up front for anything that you might find offensive in this message. I too like the forgiving nature of wikiP. It is always a learning experience in what is and isn't going to be allowed and how what was allowed won't be depending on the set of editors and admins who are most active at a given time and place. It is wrong to allow a sockpuppet of a blocked editor to continue just because their ban is up in a day or so and in the case of this editor the original ban was for three months so, if it hadn't been changed, what would your attitude be? Again I am venting so many apologies. I admire your courage to be more open. It is funny that you can find where an anon IP is editing from but not a user name. Unless that program that was big in the news a week or so ago allows one to do it without needing to go through check user. Unfortunately I am not adept at computers or the internet or I would already have done this before leaving this message.

PS you did not sign your last message at The Parsnip!'s posting at the AN/I page so I had to do some searching to make sure it was you. I hope that this is just a learning message for you but I will also understand any resentment that comes out of it. That is another part of the wikiway and I hope that future editing or questions will not be too adversely affected by this message. MarnetteD | Talk 06:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

of course I do not take offense--it never occurred to me that I would. If you've looked above at my p. it would be clear that people may say unpleasant things to me as much as they please. But what you are saying is not the least unpleasant. The policy about privacy of user names is a long-established one here, and not likely to change. Personally, I would support a policy requiring people to use their true names, but I think I am in the small minority about this. Also, personally, I think admin action should be confined to ongoing problems, and checkuser reserved for major ongoing disruption. My practice, and that of many others, is not to interfere unless there is an ongoing problem. Otherwise things tend to spiral out of control. Some people here do it that way, some don't. I've learned it from others--not my original idea. Sorry I forgot to sign, but its always in the edit history. DGG (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Billy James

I checked for references before placing the prod, found some winners like this http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/billy_james/. Did you check for references before removing the prod? Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, and it is a problem because there are a number of music performers/writers of the same name. I did manage to find one undoubted fixed point. Beyond there it's going to take print. (the guy you found does not seem to be the right one, and there's another who seemed right except for the date the British Library assigned him.) Dylan is about a contemporary as I'm comfortable with, anyway. DGG (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TIMETRACE has been enhanced, give a look

WikiProject Timeline Tracer has been greatly enhanced with Guidelines and Strategy as well as many alternatives which will make your editions more easy to target, easier to tag or comment and much more. Please go to WP:TIMETRACE, give a look in the new tools and get busy helping articles. Remember that this WikiProject is helping the backbone (beyond content) of all articles , Reliable Sources and Verification. Thank you for participating Daoken 11:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ref:UNombud

Thanks for that, was a nice surprise. Sorry the delay in replying, was a little bit busy in real lifeJenny^Len 11:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Electrical quackery has been moved to Electrical devices in alternative medicine

I propose that this article, if not reasonably turned into a worthy content within a couple of weeks, it is considered for speedy deletion. As it is, cannot be taken seriously, it is just a propaganda against those devices and this is not the place for it. Serious medical articles must substitute these kind of fringe groups articles. Unfortunately I lack administrative powers, therefore I am requesting to you to consider the article for speedy deletion if not improved. ☤'ProfBrumby 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A good & objective change of title, as a start. But none of this is a reason for speedy deletion, or even deletion. Please see WP:Deletion policy. Content disputes should be resolved by appropriate means of dispute resolution. But I personally am too involved otherwise to devote the necessary attention and time to mediate this. DGG (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Hamid Dabashi

Hello DGG, due to the personal attacks and the "edit wars" during my attempts at wikifying the article, by multiple "exclusive" users, I had taken a break from editing the article. I thank you for your efforts, which were also reverted, and would like to receive more feedback on the talk page with possible suggestions to its remaining issues (I had already transferred it from a quote collection into an article). Hamid Dabashi is a respected scholar and it is somewhat surprising and even troubling that there is so much vanity around him, which could hurt his reputation. Thank you and best regards, gidonb 15:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (responded on article talk page-DGG)

DGG, thank you very much for your feedback!!! gidonb 18:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Impact factors

Hopefully you're not going by our article on impact factors, since this article is being edited by the Elsevier socks.

They should have been deleted to discourage the practice of creating sock puppet accounts to create and complexly link articles on Wikipedia, as has been going on since 2004 (the earliest ones I found).

I suggested just making them redirects initially, but the adminstrator was hell bent on attacking me, rather than doing anything useful for Wikipedia, so I gladly followed suit--I've found taking the high road to be entirely useless on Wikipedia.

Not all of the journals are as high impact factor as others, but Trends in Plant Sciences is a leading journal in the field, as is Current Opinion in Immunology, I believe. Both of these journals could have their own articles, as they're certainly more notable than the average Pokeman card--as could quite a number of other science journals that aren't even mentioned on Wikipedia.

But unsourced, single purpose COI sock accounts need to stop creating articles on Wikipedia for commercial puproses, and if their articles are not simply deleted, but debated and kept, this is an incentive to Elsevier to continue producing crappy clone articles all over Wikipedia. No one blocked the socks, or even cared about them, it was all about me.

And, the more crappy clone articles, the more articles put up on AfD to be deleted because they're unsourced, and don't state their notability--these articles about perfectly notable journals are just crying out to be AfDed by anyone with the time. And this is more time I personally waste defending keeping articles about things that have been discussed for longer than cartoon trading cards existed. The deletion then creates an edit page that is a disincentive to recreating a good article, because it comes with the notice that the article has been deleted as non-notable or some other such thing.

There's no way to win at this--particularly when my reasonable suggestions are ignored, in fact, I'm ignored unless I go overboard. And the sock puppets are given carte blanche to continue, and it becomes about some administrator getting her feelings hurt rather than about what's really going on. I simply can't deal with it. Nothing I do is ever of any value, no matter how obvious is seems to me, and I have to assume I am simply out of step with Wiki reality. Sock puppetry is welcomed, commercial COI accounts are fine, all is as it should be, apparently, until I wasted everyone's time saying anything. I feel like an idiot in comparison, that I spend time reading and translating technical papers and picking and choosing and searching for references, when people are willing to fight tooth and nail to keep sock puppet generated crap.

And I've had it up to here with administrators calling me a troll because I question their actions--enough.

KP Botany 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PS I did once offer to rewrite an article by the author of a book, and have been mercilessly hounded for it since then. The article is still a worthless piece of crap, but its author and owner is fine with that. Good luck. Here's the active sock account for communication User talk:222.67.188.123.

Frankly, I consider a subject notable no matter who writes it. Much of the important content of WP is from people with a very close relationship to the subject. The problem with COI is that they dont write very good articles, they write lousy undescriptive articles like these. My attitude to PR people is different from yours. I think they ought to be taught to write good articles, and then we ought to edit them carefully. I have worked with PR guys from several publishers, including this publisher, and gotten decent articles out of them. I've had them withdraw the articles, and get an ok from me off wiki before reinserting them. It can generally be made clear to someone what is needed, if the person is reasonable. I've rarely had trouble with guys from major companies--they know the importance of getting the material written so it stays, even if it means learning a completely different style. Where I have trouble with is amateurs, or sometimes guys who own the business or run the journal or the society, who have so much emotionally invested in it that they can;t see past the self-interest. And also PR guys from academic departments--I've succeeded with one, and failed with several. One of them refused to rewrite his series of articles after multiple appeals from various people, and they got deleted. Can't figure out why. I was tempted to email his boss. I'll give a try with your anon.

As for the impact factor article, thanks for the hint. I'll take a look. since i wrote a good deal of it in the first place, I should take another look. But if I know Elsevier, they're trying to explain why impact factors aren't that important (since their journals by & large don't do well by that measure). I've answered them on the professional lists, I can deal with them here. DGG (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I rewrite a lot of small biographies, some of physicians, and recently took a completely different tactic with a COI writer. I showed him an article before User:Acalamari and I got to it, and I showed him the article after we were done with it. His response was, wow, cool, you'd do that for my uncle's article? Yup, because his uncle, although poorly referenced on the web, is obviously an important and notable physician. I'll have to research him next time I go to UCSF, but the editor is fine with us taking whatever time we need to give the article a professional appearance. I think if you prepare a couple of before and afters it might be equally as effective with other COI editors.

Yes, Elsevier's journals are hit and miss, more miss largely since their prices went through the stratosphere; however, for some obscure areas and journals they have higher impact factors than for others, so it's not safe to assume all of their journals are anything. Every botanist I know reads their Trends in Plant Sciences, alongside only Taxon and American Journal of Botany--although I don't know why. (Oh, I see, it's a journal on biochemical plant genetics, kinda the area I work in. So, maybe my idea that it is a more important journal than the other Trends journals is skewed.)

I don't know enough about impact factors to edit that article at all, but there has been a lot of funky editing going on over there. You'll catch them if you go to the edit histories and run through the diffs of most of the red-linked editors, not the ips. Here's one of Thomson Scientific's editors.[10] This guy has a PageRank agenda.[11] This guy's pushing Seymour Melman and Economic Reconstruction.[12] Anyway, it was an interesting article to run through the red-linked authors on--they all seem to have agendas. There were also a couple of Springer clones doing the same thing the Elsevier socks are doing, but I don't know if I marked them. I will be glad to send them all your way, though, in the future. KP Botany 04:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

not only are some of their most outrageously priced journals the most notable, they're by far the easiest to document, since people have been loudly complaining for years. I'd expect on balance I'd want to keep 80-90% of the ES titles, but the subject people can decide. The Thomson guy isn't necessarily following company line--they don't like Page Rank particularly, except to the extent that its based on the citation index principle. And if he's been doing Economic Reconstruction, it's a personal hobby. Not every who edits out of a company office is doing it primarily for the company. But by all means, add to my collection as you see them. U Chicago Press is another problem, by the way. The priority for adding of course is the scientific societies, not the commercial publishers--would you like to do some botany journals? DGG (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never looked up botany journals on Wikipedia. What are we missing? You can toss them my way, I'm skewed towards the biochemistry, genetics and ecology, but I read 2 or 3 plant journal articles a day for my research which is mostly about systematics. I'm going to just start writing short bios of major scientists who are missing on Wikipedia, but not really using references--it's too much work, and not the least bit rewarding. I can't believe we didn't have a word about Daniel Axelrod on Wikipedia. At least let me know what's missing in botany journals. Oh, I see we have the American Journal of Botany but not the Botanical Society of America which is currently thickly in the midst of a scientific revolution--and the AJB is a crappy stub. No Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden which is in the same place. Oh, I found the list. But we have a pretty article for Curtis's Botanical Magazine, at least. KP Botany 05:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is a great discussion! Some of the COI stuff you are uncovering is really good, KP. Please do keep an eye on that sort of things, and don't let the reaction to the Current Opinion epsiode put you off. DGG, you say "add to my collection as you see them. U Chicago Press is another problem, by the way" - would you be able to expand on that? Is this collection of stuff (COI stuff, or just 'journal contacts'?) online or something you maintain offline? And how are U Chicago Press a problem? More of the same? You'll notice that the Category:Journals by publisher category structure I started included three of the bigger companies I know of: Elsevier, Nature Publishing Group and University of Chicago Press. I don't know enough about journal publishing to say whether that list of three misses out any big publishing companies. My vision for that category structure would be to have the big ones having their own categories, and with the ones published by "the scientific societies" grouped in another category. Some, of course, appear in both, so before I go ahead with that, would you and KP be able to provide any guidance? Royal Society publications would be a good place to start. See Royal Society#Publications. Also Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society used to be published in-house, but is now done by Blackwell. I'm also wondering if we should have a more specific category for things like JSTOR and Astrophysics Data System. They are currently collected in Category:Digital libraries, but maybe the ones containing journals should be grouped apart from the ones containing books (and the ones containing both would go in both, obviously). Would that work, do you think? There are definitely enough digital libraries in that category now to justify subcategorising based on topic (arts and humanities, vs scientific, for example). Carcharoth 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

1. . Categories. dont go too fast--they are a real nuisance to change. Please first consider the problem already present with just journal publishers and scientific journal publishers. There's some discussion of this at the top of the page. Publisher names change. Most but not all Elsevier titles in WP are from what used to be Elsevier Science, and is now Elsevier Science+Business. A good many articles and links need fixing. I think the two KP mentioned below are good to add, though as a start.
2. . digital libraries. Dividing by subject is possible, though there are many multi-disciplinary ones that it might be necessary to list in more than one article. Dividing by type is more of a problem. Almost every one of the major ones is constructed differently: ADS is a complex multi-type information system: an free index, a set of links to outside articles at publishers and elsewhere, many of them toll access, a free preprint data base, and a few other parts also. JSTOR is a subscription-access database of scanned journal article backfiles licensed from various journal publishers, together with a freely-accessible OCR-based index, which is what one sees at google Scholar. Muse is a aggregator for current journal articles from several major non-profit publishers. Pubmed is a index, with online abstracts, but part of a remarkably complex system, & there's a whole wikiproject devoted to the various parts. and so on. There have been some serious disagreements about what to call the various types, and digital Libraries is nicely nonspecific. Similarly, what most university libraries do nowadays is just list everything as "Digital resources" or "electronic resources", without attempting to distinguish the journals from the indexes from the reference works.
3. What i think is needed more than organization is simply more articles, about as many journals and database systems as possible, done in groups if convenient. I think a good deal of Royal society is already in, but sure, add the others--there is the advantage of a long history to write about and many published sources. DGG (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're missing quite a few, Springer, and Wiley for starters. It would be good of you to organize these, as you did a great job starting, and the stubs you wrote would be adequate for all jouranls for now. If you have the time could you possibly improve the American Journal of Botany article? I don't have much time for editing and research right now, but it, along with the Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden have been the leading publishers of information that has radically changed Angiosperm systematics since 1993, and they both should have articles that reflect the importance of the major articles. Also, the Linnean Society journals, now that I think of it. (I know I spell his name wrong.) KP Botany 03:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

what journal articles should have as content

My suggestion about suitable content in general, is:

• of course the infobox stuff: title, and publisher, and starting date, and frequency,
• An explicit statement that it's peer-reviewed, and whether its a review journal or an abstract journal or what. Publishers like to list all the sections. i don't think that's encyclopedic. Every scientific journal typically has articles and editorials and letters to the editor and occasional reviews.
• The subject field only if it isnt obvious. Publishers often try to say something like X journal of chemistry covers organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry and analytical chemistry and biochemistry, and will be of interest to research and development chemists in industry and the academic world, as well as related specialists. I think that's pure PR gibberish.
• and a thumbnail of the cover for identification purposes,
• availability of online version and coverage of backfiles
• changes in title and dates.
• The name & institution of the editor in chief, but usually just the editor in chief. Some publications with extremely notable past editors in chief should list them, but it's usually excessive. This information is used to establish the notability of the scientists concerned--any ed. in chief of a major journal will generally get a WP article. Not the whole board.
• Major indexing services.like ChemAbs, Web of Science, Scopus, Inspec, Compendex, Medline/PubMed, Biosis, Psych Info, or the analogous ones in other fields. This is a major factor in establishing notability for a journal. *You can and should give the impact factor. The current ones are 06. It can also give the JCR rank, but best as as 4th out of the 80 journals in ___. It means more than just 4th, because 4th could be 4th out of 8. s.
• Use the category for the publisher and the subject-journal categories--the higher level ones are filled automatically. Do not link to other journals the categories will do it.

and optional if convenient,

• The circulation, from Ulrich's if available, or from the USPO statement if there is one.
• the two or three most notable or highest citation papers ever published
• Whether its included in major 3rd party online services such as ebsco or proquest & if there is an embargo, as there usually is for journals like these, how long it is.
• sometimes, the number of libraries holding from WorldCat--that is basically the number of US+Canada libraries.

People sometimes want to see 3rd party references. i usually list JCR and Ulrichs. DGG (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll try and try my hand at expanding a few stubs and see how it goes. A similar conversation is taking place at User talk:Geogre#IRC and AfD, more focused on humanities journals. I'm going to cross-link the two threads. As for the categories, I will make some lists and play around with various groupings and run them past you and others before creating the categories. Carcharoth 13:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good. In this sciences, I would like the major articles to be listed closer to the front of the article than much of the other stuff. There are a couple of major scientific revolutions going on, one in angiosperm systematics, in which papers of astronomical importance have been published, this should be discuss early on, and linked to the primary article that discusses something from the paper. (APG II for example.) Does the infobox include language of the journal? There are some Japanese geological journals and still German journals on physics and some other oddballs in languages other than English, with extensive abstract distributions in English. KP Botany 04:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, language. I think there's provision for it. For the many journals that were once multilingual or German and now are English, that would best be said in the article. No reason not to put major papers at the start, either. Or really major authors, sometimes. Or the authors first and then the papers. I think there's room for a good deal of variation and experimentation in this. Main job is to get the articles, and put them into the appropriate subject categories.,

Categories-- The basic one is the subject category, as Category:Botany journals, etc. Usually they get added also to a category like Category:Chemical literature, if there is one for the subject. Often they also get added to the category for the broad subject or sometimes the narrow one or both--I am not 100% sure it's a good idea, but it's usual. and the appropriate publisher category, as Category: Elsevier journals. (I just found out from the publisher that the name to use is now in fact Elsevier , not Elsevier Science or Elsevier Science+Business.

And another thing--if the journal is an Open access journal, add Category:Open access journals; if its one of those with open access after an embargo period, use instead Category:Delayed open access journals. There exists also the category Hybrid open access journals, for those titles where an author can optionally pay for open access for a particular article, but I think it is now useless, since all the journals from most major publishers now allow it, and an increasing number of societies--every Springer journal, for example, and most or all of Wiley and a lot of Elsevier. These pages need some updating.

And there is also a working party at Wikipedia:List of missing journals, which we need to coordinate with.

DGG (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding categories, the naming is sometimes inconsistent. eg. Category:Botany journals and Category:Botanical journals. The former is correct, the lattter needs changing. Carcharoth 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And it's Category:Chemistry literature. That all needs sorting out. I might also try and find books and essays and magazines to expand the "literature" categories, but that is outside the scsope of the journals wikiproject, now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals (I dropped a note off to John Vandenberg. Carcharoth 17:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ieee

Dont explain this to me. My post on WP:AN/I was to a request for somebody to explain this guy what he did wrong. Since I reverted his deletions, I was quite sure he would not listen to me. Ignorant people who are lazy to make a quick google search or even to read wikipedia are not people I want to talk to. `'Míkka 22:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that my text leaves an impression I am angry "at people who are trying to help". In any case, you don't have to help *me*: you have to help wikipedia by talking reason to this guy, since, as you may have already guessed, I am emotionally incapable to do this. Exactly for this reason I asked to other people to step in, rather that to bicker with a smartaleck myself. `'Míkka 22:30, 26

Journals

I see from the above that there is more history to the Elsevier stuff than I had realised. I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to a "speedy" though. Are you referring to the Current Opinion stuff, or the Category:Journals by publisher (and related categories) that I created recently? Carcharoth 00:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

the Current opinion stuff, and the DRV this morning [13]. The categories of journal by publisher are the obvious way to go, though there are some questions about overlap. I don;'t see any attempt to delete them. As you said at the AfD on current Opinion in Immunology, [14], the job is to get in articles for all the other important journals. I'll help as I can, especially if my knowledge of the publishers can be of any use.DGG (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

BRFA

Please comment on the main BRFA page - thats what the discussion section is for. Also, could you clarify your comment? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The notability of Yoichi

I appreciate the revival of the article " Yoichi Masuzoe".He is konwn as the amiable presenter in owarai TV.

And British navy wikipedian is one of the friends with much homor.I hope his progresses in the sence of .... ----The DQN,macbeth 07:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Hi, I would like your opinion about Quackwatch, it seems to be {{db-advert}} but is protected and who protected it seems to not want to the tag for {{db-advert}} be placed. Could you give a look? I came there from WP:ORGZ and that article seems writen by the organization itself .Daoken 10:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Protecting the article does not imply endorsement of the current content--it is just a temporary measure to prevent edit warring. It has at any rate been unprotected a little while ago. Frankly, I see no imperative reason to add an advertisement tag, and if a tag war starts again, the article will surely be protected again. It would be more productive to work on the contents of the article than quarrel over tagging. DGG (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Little Forest Hills, Dallas, Texas

I don't understand your objection to Little Forest Hills. Why is it any less important than Forest Hills? Or than any of the dozens of small areas under 'Lake Highlands'? The point of the neighborhoods section is to identify and describe the many areas of Dallas, by starting the page I was hoping to lay a basic ground work for others more knowledgeable than me to follow from. That being said, I will add something of 'importance,' but I think you're missing the concept. Noleman05 15:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Noleman05

Hello colleague

Do you feel like a Librarian today? If you do, give a look at WP:KIS and let me know if you have someone in mind who could have the time to code the most used labels (languages and most known projects). Also I have a problem with the box for the labels, I don't know what code to enter for the labels display horizontally inside the box instead of vertically. If you don't feel like a librarian today, that is fine also, we file it for another time ℒibrarian2 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The box problem is solved, I made instead a rail kind of thing where the labels go (makes you remember something?) I like it better anyway. But the need of someone as I said above is still actual ℒibrarian2 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbeiter Zeitung

Hi thanks for editing the 1880 chicago version of the Arbeiter Zeitung but now i cant seem to find the fascist one ! do you know what the title of the article s? i want to link them all together, since these people and groups likely borrowed ideas from one another for decades in the German language. Interesting anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs) 01:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The Chicago paper was published by anarchists, the kind of Germans that the fascists murdered. The fascists certainly did not borrow ideas from them just because they wrote in the same language. Are you thinking of the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung? --Orange Mike 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (hopes you realize "Zeitung" means "Times")

I see no evidence that there ever was a Fascist one by that title. The two principle ones are the Chicago one, which was anarchist, and important in american history primarily for the involvement in the notorious Haymarket riot investigation and the Vienna one, which was middle-of-the road socialist and important not just politically but culturally (and as the publisher of many important documents of record). I do not see any evidence at all for them being versions of each other or in any way related. It's a rather obvious German title for any left wing publication. The Fascists murdered anarchists, true, but also other left wing people of many different sorts--I have always understood that the Communists were their principal enemy, being the strongest. I don't think there is any basis for a general article, only for articles on the individual titles. Besides these two there are a number of others of various left-wing political tendencies, in the US and in Europe, listed in British Library and Library of Congress catalogs, mostly with very fragmentary files--so it would be hard to give starting of finishing dates. --I have not searched the German catalogs or bibliographies yet--I know what they are and how to use them but I'm not an expert in 19th century newspapers. The deWP is of only limited help, as their articles do not give sources. The one earlier claimed to be Fascist is a mistake for something by the anon. contributor back in 2005. [15], and I do not know what he had in mind. The DAZ was extreme right wing, but I think never an official party newspaper. From 1920 on, the Nazi official paper was the Völkischer Beobachter. DGG (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Victor misread "anti-fascist" as "fascist" at some point. --Orange Mike 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

sounds right. . DGG (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Elaine Kennedy

I still think a speedy would be appropriate, since she is a not-yet successful minor-party candidate, and the sources are level of awards are questionable in my opinion. But that's why I don't want to be an admin, because I want a second opinion on most of my speedy tags. Realkyhick 03:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (sure, but please remember: non-notable is not enough for speedy, it must also not even assert any notability--DGG)

Quackwatch

I want to let you know that there is now reason to charge against me in the AfD discussion. I would rather prefer a true comment than a characterization (wrong albeit) of who presented the article for deletion. The article is an old PR rag all bitten up by groups and nothing else, it had the chance to change and is still PR and largely selfreferenced and that is the only reason I nominated it. If a new article was written in a fully encyclopedic way I am sure it will stand firm. I will appreciate you don't characterize me freely at any time in the future. Jenny^Len☤ 07:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

shemale 2

As per previous discussion with you i have created page here: Talk:Shemale/DRV_proposal. This i created from afd article history, i changed only lead section. You can find innumerable ref's if you google search shemale+"secondary sex characteristics". But DRV looks imminent, since there seems to be opposition, since it is a derogatory term to some people, and i would love 5~ comments. Lara_bran 10:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have listed for DRV, have look at my reasons. Even there 4~s, sometime back i had seen 5~ comments there, donno. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i hadn't noticed your edits to shemale, since you dint reply. I wished to finish off job from my side, and i posted for DRV. I tried to shorten my wikipedia time max possible. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Help me in a confusion. Shemale can be 1 shemale by birth([[transexual]]Intersexual), or 2. a male(transwoman, who mentally wishes to become woman) who surgically replaced hormones for a breast. Im unable to sort in lead section, with available refs. Also testicles come under genetalia, but no "reliable" source i could find other than porn websites. Give a look. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Three terms im confused. transexual, intersexual, transgender. Me taking short break. Please dont mind too many of my comments, maybe me troubling you much. Lara_bran 04:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Me done. I have break lead section into seperate parts, and brought to shape. I am seriously done this time :). Some unreferenced sentences there, but not any more is necessory there. I wont be following your talk page any more, you seem to be busy. Also i should have used article's talk page, not user talk for all these, but there is no article talk page :) Bye. Lara_bran 06:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

the requirements

Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche : "It is not enough that it be licensed for wikipedia!! it must be released under a GFDL license, which permits the further use by anyone in the world for any purpose, even commercial, and modification by anyone in any manner. See WP:Copyright DGG (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:R%C3%A9dacteur_Tibet""

I indicated this and the exact web page correspondig to "the guide to requesting and formalizing" to the webmaster of www.benchen.org. He responded : "for me its ok to use the text of Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche on wikipedia. But as they say on the page, it needs more introduction, because not everybody is so much into it" Therefore, it is clear that the text can be used for wikipedia. However, it needs clarification, and probably simplification. --Rédacteur Tibet 14:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

not yet sufficient, replied further on your talk page--DGG.

antiracist activists

Dear Administrator, I am interested in knowing how I can make my article more notable. Should I just include the activists who have published articles and books? And delete the others? I tried changing the name of the piece to be more inclusive as Iwould like to add more names as I research them. Does this sound do-able to you? I would like the entry to stand in some way; any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Sanlaw33 16:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it possible to have a good article on the current plan. There is no good way to includes relatively non-notable people in a portmanteau article of this sort--it will be seen as an attempt to bypass WP:N. You can write an article on individual people if there are third party published references in reliable sources dealing about them in a substantial way, and this is the preferred way to go. Web sites of their organizations are not such sources. Newspaper & magazine articles are, but again not those linked to their organizations. Of the sources in the existing articles, only the Boston Globe story fits. Articles in alumni magazines are very borderline--they do not have a very high reputation for objectivity.

(incidentally, Administrators here have no special power in matters like this--all editors have an equal voice in the consensus when it comes to deciding notability at AfD--all that administrators do there is decide what the consensus of the discussion actually is and delete or not accordingly. All we can do otherwise is delete articles that are altogether unquestionably unacceptable. There are many Wikipedians of great experience who choose not to become administrators, and are highly respected. What is true is that nobody is accepted as an administrator without a considerable degree of experience and community expression of confidence.)

more detailed discussion on your talk page. DGG (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

World's largest airlines

thanks for helping me with that 2nd nomination. I found reading the comments in the deletion proposal informative, and am glad the process was carried out completely. I'll try to add more text once it calms down from the merge. Pdbailey 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Carroll

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

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

Nexus War Logo Usage

Hi. I am the copyright owner of the logo image currently being used on the Nexus War page. I notice that the previous time this image was uploaded, it was deleted due to a lack of copyright use.

I am perfectly willing to allow the graphic to stay on wikipedia, but I don't know how to go about indicating as such. Being as you appear to have some knowledge of wikipedia's inner workings, is there a way that I can assert that permission is given?--Jorm 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC) See WP:LOGOS--a little more detail on your talk page. DGG

antiracist activists

Thanks, DGG for your helpful advice. I am wondering how much time I have before the current Wikipedia entry is deleted? I will make the changes you suggest. Sanlaw33 22:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

how to communicate on the WP:Deletion Review

Thanks again, DGG, for the advice. I went to the deletion review page (WP: Deletion REview), but could not figure out where to communicate my intention and rationale for withdrawing the pages you mention. What and where should I click to add my suggestion? Can you help me out?Sanlaw33 23:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot articles

Hello I need a opinion. I find that several hundred or maybe a few thousand stub articles were built by Ganeshbot without a reference section and the only reference given on them is {{GR|India}} (but some like Ghorawal did get a reference section). Many of them like Ghorabandha have not matured past stubs. Some like Kangeyam have matured into large unreferenced articles. Some like Mandi Gobindgarh have grown and captured a few references that could use {{citation style}}. I got in a fairly long discussion with the bot builder at User_talk:Jeepday#Re:_Kangeyam after posting a {{uw-unsor1}} to his talk page, suggesting he figure out how to add a reference section and list the reference instead of the wikilink on all those unreferenced articles. He responded that it was beyond his ability and that I make a request at WP:BOTREQ . I have not responded to this because I am not sure if my motivation is related to, my initial response to the complaint that I used a template message (WP:DTTR) to point to an issue in his bot article which was less then happy, or because it seems to conflict with Wikipedia policy. I think both play a part but my work in Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles also drives my motivation and I so I need an uninvolved perspective. Thoughts? Jeepday (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

He goofed, and the bot should not have been approved. He should certainly have done it as a reference section, not as he did it. First step is to get the approval withdrawn--I am guessing, but try reporting it at WP:BONB. The next step is to get someone who knows how to make a bot to move the reference, so it shows a proper footnote to the Indian Census instead of the link --this should not be that hard to do--it ought to be an delete/add. I suppose the bot request page is the place for that. I would word it not as being unreferenced, as the source being listed wrong--I think its a clearcut error. Fixing additional references that have accumulated might be a pain. In principle, anyone who runs a bot is obligated to clean up any mess it makes, but it may be hard to persuade him--the other bot people are the ones to do it. (as you say, this is one of the cases where a personalized message might have been better than a template.) If you need further help, I'll do what I can, but someone who does bots would be a better choice--I've never had a chance to learn. DGG (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I made a post at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Ganeshbot articles after reading Wikipedia:Bot policy it appears that your assessment is correct and that that is the correct place to ask for greater in put. Thanks again. Jeepday (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

you have vandalized the caitlin upton article. there was no BLP violation whatsoever. we didn't say her birthday, home address, make anything up about her, it was all cited material. vandalism is not permitted on wikipedia. you've been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pajluvah (talk • contribs) 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• I added the unsigned tag here and also left a uw-npa1 comment with help info on this editor's talk page. Thought it would be better coming from somebody else. — Becksguy 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

doesn't undo the vandalism of course Pajluvah 04:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you also warn the 3 other admins who had previously deleted the article for BLP and non-notability both, the first three times you created it? DGG (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're Invited!

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja 06:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Hi, we had spoken before about creating articles for Physics journals. You had said you would be able to help to make sure there is no conflict of interest. I have a few articles I would like to post and would like you to look them over before I post them and run the risk of a COI. Thank you and I hope to hear from you soon. Journals88 15:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journals88 (talk • contribs) 14:50, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

sure. I have made a page for you to use for this purpose, User talk:Journals88/sandbox. Just add one there as a start, and let me know. We have an expanded help pages that you may want to read, Wikipedia:Business FAQ DGG (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I added an article to the page you setup and enabled my email. Thank you so much for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Journals88 (talk • contribs) 20:44, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Business Wire

Thanks for the feedback and education on editing guidelines. As I'm a representative of Business Wire, I'll limit my comments and suggestions to the discussion page of the site going forward to honor the COI guidelines. Becktold 21:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)becktold

QW

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

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

A7

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it agrees with the language of A7. I think it's quite a stretch to assert that Kurt Hellmer explained how the subject was important or significant. I really think the mere fact that KH was affiliated with a notable author for an unstated time period does not do it. Would the notable author's lawyer have been automatically significant? Are all of the author's works important? What about his family? Anyway, if A7 is refined or abolished, that would moot all of these fun debates! Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  16:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

my idea of an acceptable assertion is one that a reasonable newcomer to WP could make in good faith, thinking it might possibly be considered important here. Saying someone is the son of a famous man is not--at least as far as anyone outside the family is concerned, thought there are some good editors here who think it might be. enough, & I am open to argument. Saying that someone is a famous writers agent, that is. Most of the stuff suitable for A7 speedy is much lower then the son of a famous man category. Nobody can reasonably think that to have formed a band that has not yet recorded anything is notable by any standards. DGG (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)