User talk:DGG/Archive 20 Sept. 2008

User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

[[Image: Hello. I notice that you protected that page for a month. Could you please unprotect it? As far as I know, user talk pages may only be protected if the user is blocked; see WP:PP. Otherwise, I believe the talk page should remain open for communication with the user, and for any warnings that may be required. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)::about to be unprotected in a few hours.DGG (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== Protection necessary/appropriate? ==]]

Although he's substantially cut back of late, LGRdC seems not to have departed -- is edit-protecting his talk page appropriate and/or necessary? --EEMIV (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right--it has served the purpose of preventing a few days unnecessary conflict. I'll remove it now,giving him a few hours warning.DGG (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, in addition to my work, basset hound, and school related concerns, I am looking into some kind of change of username maybe even right to vanish regarding my current username and userspace related in part to some off-wiki, but still wiki-related concerns that I would rather not go into here (let's just say some really are fanatics and take things too far) in that my current userspace has made it too easy to identify me. Moreover, I only edited yesterday after a brief email exchange with Lankiveil regarding his RfA and now today after being notified that my talk page may be unprotected. I am trying to decide if I should request both talk and user be deleted and hold off from continuing on Wikipedia altogether in that too much outside stuff needs focus, or if I should just change my username and "start over." If you wish to discuss with me by email, that is fine, as I am not really looking at my talk page at present and had no intention of logging back on yesterday or today if it weren't for the aforementioned emails. Nor do I have any intention of logging back in in the immediate future, barring I am indeed again notified of something significant via email, although to be honest, I am seriously considering closing my yahoo email as well I really do need to focus on my non-wiki life and to do all I can to encourage certain individuals to leave me alone. Thank you for your time and consideration. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG -- Thanks. And, sorry, I didn't see Sandstein's question two spots up. Sorry to clutter your talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored my talk page for the time being, although I strongly urge anyone to just email while I look into what would be the best idea to proceed, i.e. should I do a right to vanish, username change, etc. I see that User:Dorftrottel just restarted as User:Everyme and User:Addhoc became User:PhilKnight. So, maybe something like this would be the way to proceed as my current username and userspace has made it too easy for unwanted off-wiki consequences. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Vice should be speedily deleted

No references or connection to university stated. Detroit Vice is a novel that is hoped to be created by 11 year-old Zach Hill'. Page creater = Zach135454 "Hill plans to release this at the end of 2009-2010." WP:CRYSTAL This article is not about a book, but a plan by an eleven year old to write a book.PB666 ^yap 18:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Please archive your talk page, it is so long it does not load in a timely manner.[reply]

has been deleted, as a test page, but it really did not meet any of the conventional criterial exactly--what we may need is a criterion for fiction, etc. that is worded to delete stuff like this, but not things that should be transwikified, such as poems by established authors out of copyright. DGG (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raj khanna

It was listed at WP:AFD/O, so I assumed the discussion period was over. Maybe there's something wrong with the bot that updates the list. --Hut 8.5 08:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Dean College

Hi there. Thanks for the rewrite on West Dean College. I had originally tagged it as CSD spam because the author's name is obviously tied to the school (User:Westdean) and so I inferred that it was a coi/spam thing. You're right though that a rewrite is probably better than deletion, and I'll attempt that next time a similar situation comes up. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an excellent guide, WP:BFAQ, our FAQ for COI-influenced articles like this, prepared by Durova. I frequently send that link to editors like that to give them advice DGG (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I send people there all the time too. Cheers.... justinfr (talk/contribs) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Speedy Deletion of Films set in Michigan

Hey there. Please review your decision to decline speedy for Films set in Michigan. As you could have seen from the talk page that you deleted, the author was a new editor who has not understood how categories work and has copied Category:Films set in Michigan to Films set in Michigan to be able to add movies. I have explained it to him at his talk page and I think the page can be removed as CSD#G2. Regards So Why 23:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, truly is a page made in error, sorry i didn't understand at first -- I've now deleted it. DGG (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. Thanks for it. Have a nice evening :-) So Why 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramachandran

Since you replied to my last message at WP:HARM, I thought I'd point you to the latest on the issue, with a post by a person claiming to the be the article subject threatening deletion of the article. [1] I am curious, what has been done in previous cases when a BLP article subject simply does not want certain information, or any information, available about himself or herself on Wikipedia? Robert K S (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson

I created Samuel Johnson's morality and Samuel Johnson's politics. I plan on possibly removing two paragraphs on his literary criticism and adding two summary paragraphs (one for each of the above). However, what I would like from you is to provide any off hand knowledge, requests for topics, etc, on the talk pages. In particularly, I will describe Johnson's moral views on slavery on the morality page, and his political views on Scotland, colonialism/the colonies, and the politics of slavery on the politics page. Most of his works criss cross between, but I think I can follow David Greene's model to split them apart. It should allow me to give rough summaries of his writings followed by a moral detailed analysis of some key topics. It is really starting to look like Johnson needs a WikiProject. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good approach. But I would suggestmoral writings or moral views, or even better ethical views. The phase SJ's morality has an unfortunate implication. I think the key in both is his writings, not his political views to the extent there was a difference, despite his ironic. "Of course I can not drink Kings James health in the wine King George gives me the money to pay for." Any major writer is worth a complex of articles (the alternative, a very long one in the old EB style, is less effective on the web, though in principle equally justifiable. I look forward to a WP 2.0 where the text is in a granular database and these things can be adjusted to suit. DGG (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would "moralism" work? Or "moralisms"? I want to make the term broad enough to include quotes that might not have been in Johnson's writings. I also want to capture the feeling of him being a "moralist", so ethical views might obscure this. Feel free to move accordingly. Also, I'm going to try and follow Greene's pattern in separating (yet uniting) the two. His work on the Yale editions and helping to divide the sections is particularly worth while. I might also make a page devoted to his literary career, i.e. a brief assessment of how his styles and works developed (journalism, poetry, biography) without talking about the themes per se. This would allow for a discussion on his editing techniques. Thats far down the road and not a current concern, however. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article talk p. is the place to continue, so others can join. In any case, moralism seems to have a specific technical meaning which does not apply to SJ. I don't see the distinction your making between having ethical views and being a moralist. I seem to recall the term JB usually uses of him in this context is "moralist" Come to think of it, let me check his dictionary. 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to ethical views. Someone can move it to something different later. I wanted to note that I trimmed the critical section and put in more information on his moral views and political views in the character sketch section and then put main links at the top. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJ TextEd

Hello again, DGG ...

Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{23:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

I am not confident about the importance and reliable nature of the sources used for the software reviews there; the reviews appear relatively superficial. As I don't use Windows if I can help it, and think BBEdit and pico the optimum editors for the platforms I do use, I haven't followed developments here, but there doesn't seem anything revolutionary. (yes I said pico--I like to keep things very simple). If in doubt, AfD on a program like this will bring out the mavens. DGG (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Hey DGG, just letting you know that I've managed to get Category:Articles with trivia sections from May 2007 down from 265 articles down to about 50. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now down to 0! Category is now cleared - woohoo! - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big P.S. - you are a legend. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fortuny

Sorry, didn't realize it was overturned at DRV. I've been trying to find the right template to show this on the talk page. Do you happen to know which template to use? It has to be similar to the AFD history template. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im not good at this sort of syntax. Just give the link somewhere and someone will fix it up. But first consider whether you are indeed likely to get the article deleted. It would appear to me that the latest NYT article on him, in connection with the previous articles, makes a good case for notability. One event does not apply when the event is sufficiently important, & if the NYT refers to him as notable, he probably is by even our standards. I hope I am not influenced excessively by the fact that I think his actions utterly appalling. DGG (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the tip! I'll keep it in mind next time. Antivenin (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hebrew of Jesus

Hey DGG, just going about my Prod perusals I noticed this comment of yours on the above talk page. You didn't actually remove the Prod from the article, just letting you know that's all. RMHED (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC) -- fixed, thanks. as for the article, expert attention needed. DGG (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Michael Hartman

Hey, I noticed your remarks in the AfD for Michael Hartman that there were a few problems with the nomination. I've responded to your concerns and I hope I've addressed them appropriately. Sorry if my nom seemed like a clear-cut case of using an argument to avoid! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited my comment there. Sorry if I sounded too snappy. Thanks. DGG (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all active WP:NOVELS members

WikiProject Novels Roll Call

WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!

Next month we will begin the coordinator election selection process. We hope to have more involvement and input this time around! More news will be forthcoming. Thanks, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 15:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

Comments?--Filll (talk | wpc) 02:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

extremely intresting. this one is only borderline, but I think Hrafn is pressing things on this general topic area much too hard. DGG (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times?

Hello David, some time ago (actually, exactly one year ago, as I now see :-)) you helped me out by sending me an article we've then used for the article on Björn Gunnlaugsson. I wonder if you could help me a second time? I'm looking for a 98-word snippet from the New York Times of August 5, 1933 about a painter named Bernard E. Ward. Do you have access to the NYT archives? If so, could you please get me that snippet? Lupo 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, it's already done. Sorry for the noise. It's a death notice; the painter died on August 3, 1933. Exactly what I suspected. Lupo 08:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post doc link

Hi ! On your page you link to Alan Wilson, presume it should be Allan Wilson. Shyamal (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous class

Just a heads up that I'm about to recreate Anonymous class as a stub - hopefully with a bit more content than the last version must have had. Cheers, Ben Aveling 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous content was : An anonymous class is an inner class which is initialized and used on the fly. Example: dispatcher.forward(new HttpServletRequestWrapper(request) { } ); [JDJ article on Inner classes http://jdj.sys-con.com/read/35776.htm]

I am not sure there is appreciably more content present, though at least there are links. --some context is needed for the non-expert. DGG (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Novels Newsletter - September 2008

This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Culture and Imperialism

I think your edit here conflicted with my adding of a prod, but no warning was given. The speedy had already been declined (I interpreted "context" in a different way, I fully accept the refusal). I therefore restored my prod. However, if you intended to remove the prod please let me know and I'll revert my edit. Thanks. Verbal chat 15:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've already reverted me and we're editing past each other, so sorry about that. A quick review didn't lead me to think this book was notable, hence I placed the prod. No problem with the tags remaining and hopefully someone who wont have to do as much research as me will notice and fill it up a bit soon. All the best, Verbal chat 15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no problems at all. For a very notable author, its always worth checking for reviews. DGG (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

DGG,

Could you help with this issue.

Thanks, Twerges (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter

How would you feel about letting the filter trigger a short block (15 minutes or so), and fire off an IRC or a report to a log page? That way, false triggers have minimal effect, and an admin has to decide to extend the block. It does keep the kind of serial vandalism sprees we see from being very effective or much "fun".Kww (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be an excellent way of doing things, to limit the damage from the abuse and simultaneously limit the damage the program might cause. I suggest the block say explicitly that it is an interim measure. (please copy your Q and my A as appropriate) Very clever, and I wish I had thought of it. :)DGG (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section 270

This page is 455 kilobytes long. Have you considered archiving for your fellow editors' comfort and ease of use? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second. I cried when I tried to load the page on dial up. I was short in my email because of it. Pllleeeasseeee. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I'd even set up MiszaBot for you! EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do it retrospectively, so previous archives are also indexed? Otherwise i will have to do a cut off point. Yes, I am beginning to see the need to move some of the things I've ben doing to formal essays. DGG (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by 'indexed.' If MiszaBot is used, it will automatically increment archive numbers as they fill up according to a scheme like Archive_19, Archive_20 etc. but I don't think it can do 'Archive_19_Aug._2008' like the system you currently use. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded

DGG, I responded to your helpful post here

Twerges (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good advice

I am not a very social person, but i do appreciate the time you took to try to convince me to maintain a more polite front at the page that defaults as my user page when i forget to log in, or get timed out, or whatever. I think i'm logged in now, but i can't really see the screen or read it up at the top, just the keyboard and the portion of the screen directly in front of me (the little window box), so, anyway, i'll put a nicer message there, Thanks for your kindness. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bishop

An article you previously voted on in an AfD has been re-nominated. You can see the discussion at This link. Cardydwen (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, i repeated my view that it was a keep, though this time the discussion was more helpful, and I said it was a weak one. DGG (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Nassim Haramein

Previously you voted to delete this article. It survived and is now being voted on a second time. I noticed you when someone else mentioned your name on the 2nd AfD. There were a couple of edit wars in the interim. If you have the time, please give your view on the subject at the AfD:Nassim Haramein #2. The main article's talk page is rather long...Ace blazer (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know, but I still think the same, and said so. DGG (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Linden

Hi. I recently wrote about a conflict of interest with the above article, and as asked I placed proposed deletion tag on the article. The tag has now been removed. I do not know how to justify the tag properly, as the page is in such a mess it really does merit speedy deletion. It is being used for blatant advertising and the references provided are not impartial. It is also questionable whether Charles Linden as an article is noteworthy enough to merit an encyclopaedic entry anyway. My main objection is that the page is being maintained by one person only, namely user:CLinden, who has identified himself as Charles Linden himself. I would appreciate your advice and intervention in this matter. Please reply on my talk page. Thankyou. Colliver55 (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Negative proof

You claimed in the AfD that the term "Negative proof" is commonly used in scientific literature and you provided a link to a Google Scholar search as evidence. I didn't find a single citation where "negative proof" was used to mean "Conclude X from the lack of evidence for ~X." Instead, the majority of citations were coincidence (theorems with the last word "negative" followed by the word "Proof") and other irrelevant uses.

If you actually saw relevant citations in the search results, please return to the AfD and point me in the right direction. As it is, I can't say that I've ever seen the term used thus aside from on Wikipedia, a personal website and a few places that cite one or both of those.

Much thanks. Phiwum (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there and want to explain further here: As you can tell, Im not trained in philosophy, just in science, and in practice we use terms rather informally in most subjects. I apologize for what I recognize as my unprofessional view, but the common usage in other fields counts, and what non-experts need. As a reader, i think the articles on logical fallacies tend to cover too many things too quickly. the article on Argument from ignorance, for example,covers what non-philosophers may think are three different things. The argument from personal disbelief is a much cruder thing, and also really needs separate treatment. Alas, I do not have the time now to do what I really want to, which is to build up the argument about the distinctions from sources. Incidentally, the example I used is the one I taught Princeton's committee on the ethical uses of animals to use for the proof of no previous work that the federal standard demands, and they accepted it. True, I don't think there were any philosophy people there at the time.:). DGG (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional (?) book

One of the good example showing how this project is failing is that instead of trying to find out the truth about the book (as you've tried), involved editors are using it to prove bad faith on part of others (see second para). Sad, isn't it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well, all students learn that it's asking for trouble to add refs relying only on listings on the web but without seeing them. But I'm not perfect here myself. :) DGG (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2005 and earlier, it was fairly common to see editors misunderstand what the reference section is for and add stuff that now we all know should be under external links of further reading there. Inline cites helped a lot; before I - just like many, many others - used to lump everything under references, whether we used it or not... it's nice to see how our standards of quality improved. If only that improvement would involve civility and good faith... :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:TTN

I understand your frustration, but you really need to stop your ad hominem attacks on him on every AfD he does. It doesn't make you look any better than him, and it also makes you as viable as engaging in WP:POINT as much as he is. If you have a clear problem, initiate a request for comment; maybe ArbCom (you probably know there was already a second look at his conduct, in which they decided no action needed to be taken) will take a third look at his conduct or change Wikipedia's policy on AfDs.

I'm not trying to oppose your takes on things or ride you or like that; we have certainly both agreed on some articles from time to time. I also certainly agree that he is a tad heavy on bringing articles to AfD without exercising other options, but there are other venues for that — AfD, I believe, is not one of them. However, fighting fire with fire doesn't help the situation, either. That's all I want to say. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right that it's overkill, and that I have called sufficient attention to it, and could advantageously use less detail. (My reason for repeating something on every article is that in the past, those articles on which people have not bothered to add keep comments have gotten deleted). Additionally, I have refrained from the temptation to respond with an identical rationale to his identical rationales, and have reworked each one specifically for the particular situation. I havent even given the same !vote -- some keep, some merge, some redirect. One even delete. They are not ad hominem. I consider what he is doing disruptive, and I am talking about that, not him. I have said nothing about motivation except repeating what he has said himself. I am willing to work with him or anyone in effecting merges and other improvements in these articles.

And I thank you for letting me know the bad effect I am apparently having. It's good to have outside critiques. DGG (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cardinalist

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cardinalist, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Sorry to template you - just working through French orphaned articles. This came from Nuttalls, but a quick check didn't find much other reference. Kind Regards Mcewan Mcewan (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no reason not to use the template to notify me--I do not consider such templating an insult, but rather a convenience. I will look for sources. As an alternative, you could have asked me to give it a try, but this is OK also. To start me off, have you searched beyond the Googles? DGG (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've checked for an equivalent on fr wiki, also French reference books. It's not in Britannica. I think it's basically really a dictionary entry, and a not-very-common expression at that. User:DavidBrooks was the creator I think and he has concurred on my talk. Mcewan (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is another use entirely, one in economic theory [2], but it seems the root word for the concept is "cardinalism", which is even the title of an academic book: [3], so there's no point keeping this particular article--though a new one is needed on the real topic. I should have checked earlier, but I assumed you had checked the googles. DGG (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word there stems from the word "cardinal" versus "ordinal". It refers to whether or not we can think of "utility" (or satisfaction derived from something) as a value with a number attached to it (cardinal) or whether it only makes sense as a ranking (ordinal). That probably originally came from Cardinality, a mathematical term describing the size of sets. I don't know of any connection between "cardinalism" and "cardinality". I don't suspect there is one. Protonk (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, not in the sense used in this article, which seems to be imaginary. But the term is used in the exact sense of a person or approach that accepts the viewpoint of cardinalism, in the GScholar refs above. See nos. 2, 6, & 7. But, agreed 101%, that would never justify a WP article, or even a redirect. I don't know the Wiktionary policy for such derivative forms. OED would not usually make a separate lemma for such use, but add it to the main word, cardinalism. DGG (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I tracked down the entry and reported it at AN/I. The guy is highly litigious. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one of the side benefits of the mop is the ability to see the article for "a brand new video sharing site " :) DGG (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University degrees

On the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master of Science in Marketing Management, you wrote (since the AFD is now closed, I am responding on your personal Talk):

typically they need approval from whatever is the government or accrediting body having jurisdiction. We need some listing for things that people are likely to look up, not just the ones they already know about.

I can't comment on the situation in other countries, but in Australia, no government approval is needed for individual degrees. Now, you need government approval to issue degrees (e.g. Bachelor, Master, Doctorate, etc.). But, once you are authorized to issue degrees, you can issue as many different types of degrees as you want, and can call them whatever you want. Thus, there are countless different degree names used by Australian universities, and the list is never going to stop growing, so it seems silly to create a Wikipedia article for each. --SJK (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more exactly, a graduate program usually requires such. At least in NY State it does. Whether it can alter the names around I frankly do not know--interesting point--thanks for reminding me of it. But I agree with you about the uselessness of articles on names used for single programs unless the programs are particularly significant. But they should be included somewhere or other with a redirect, for people who look them up will not know in advance that they're trivial. And such was Protonk's sensible closing. DGG (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quad Relationships

Thank you for what you said about my article Quad (relationship). I just wanted to expand on the article Triad (relationship) by making this one. Heck I wasn't even finished with it when I came back to it and found somebody had marked it for deletion. Please sir, as an administrator is there anything you all can do to better police this website.Lord Balin (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what you need to do is what I said on your user page: find material for the article and add it--such is much better than argument. Find some fictional works with such relationships, and add a discussion of them as examples (shouldn't be difficult) Preferably, they should works of general literature, or significant general films, but any published--not web--material will do. then, find some discussions of this concept in real life, from some published magazine or book that is generally available, print or online. Do not rely on web sites. I know the printed literature is limited & difficult to find, but you are better situated than I to identify it. The term is extremely hard to search for on google because of other uses--I did not succeed, even with combination of other words -- e.g., quad and sexuality yielded discussions of disability. Try to write it all up in a manner that looks like an encyclopedia article--not how you;d talk to friends, but how you'd write it, for people who were not particular understanding, & thought it perhaps a little too eccentric to have a place in an encyclopedia--try to discuss it as not limited exclusively to the contemporary polyamory scene. There is a major problem with alternative sexuality articles here--one needs to explain the general significance. Then, expand the article on triads similarly--it could use it. There's certainly enough classic literature. And don't try in the article to defend Quad relationships--that's not to the point here. DGG (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Delivery System

Why would you Delete, "Global delivery system". That is something that is almost only known to the airlines. and is a big part of how the US transfers large information. How about you delete TCP/IP also I guess that is not needed. By deleting this information you have shown me how Wikipedia is a unless tool and I will never look at your site for information again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.235.38 (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because there was no information provided in the article to indicate why this web provider of project management software was in any way important. If you can show it is notable, with the use of 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases), then by all means create the article again. But unless you can provide some explanation of its significance, and back that up with some independent sources, it will undoubtedly be deleted again--see WP:CORP for the standard, for how to write an article, and in general our Business FAQ. Alternative, if you mean to discuss such systems in general, write the article so it makes it clear. It will still need sources a above. DGG (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prohairesis

I just discovered that this article exists. It is an important subject in Stoic philosophy, and I have made a small addition. The article makes a massive use of quotes, but I think that in this case that may be justified, and I would be interested in knowing your view on that. Thanks. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's way excessive. You're the expert, try to reduce them to a key sentence or two each. You want to explain what it is, not copy his entire rhetorical argument. I'm not in fact sure that 1b is even necessary. Do you know where is the translation from--is it published? if not, it will be necessary to establish the authority of the translator--it is obviously not a literal translation, e.g. "nosey parkers " Perhaps you could also add a short quotation from Aristotle that will serve as a definition of what he meant by the term. But what is also needed is a discussion saying what the difference is between this concept and the analogous terms. As just an amateur reader, it seems to be Epicetus is talking about the mental facility of intelligence, not of moral judgment--at least in the first selection. I am aware the entire school of philosophy thought them very similar, but it still needs a discussion. DGG (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it will be necessary to remove all the quotes now in the article. I will do that when I can organize a rewrite to replace it. Thanks for looking, and replying. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I just sent you a response. – SJL 01:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome back!

Howdy! Thanks for pointing out the changes in CSD, there's a lot more categories in that than I remember. Good thing, too, the new categories are ones that were "gray areas" before. BLP, uh... baroque is a good word for it. Holy crap. Definitely glad I just handle the mop. Incidentally, since I'm paranoid about how I'm doing, how'd you "discover" me? :P Mo0[talk] 04:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Proposed text addition to the policy

Would you care to comment on this proposal? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

& I did DGG (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion

Hi. I put something on WP:3 that may concern you. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and where is the discussion exactly? -- I gather this is relevant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depression and natural therapies (2nd nomination) but that has closed.,

List of people who died before the age of 30

It appears obvious now that the page List of people who died before the age of 30 is headed to deletion. I support its deletion myself. But this has given me an idea. Do you think it would make sense to have a set of categories called "Age x deaths," all in a parent category called "Deaths by age?" That seems like a better idea. This way, there would be no worry where to draw the line as to what age is "significant" as an age of death, and all ages people live to can possibly be included. There would be no need for one person to create all these categories in one day - they could be built gradually over time. We already have categories like 1949 deaths. Why can't we do the same with age? I would like some input. Sebwite (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it could be populated automagically. But the place to ask it is at the village Pump. If we had a proper database, or an really good search engine, a user could do this now as desired, but the possibility of working this way in the future -- permitting a wide variety of intersections that could be defined ad hoc--is as I understand it part of the reason why we code for Year XX births and deaths. 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octopus (politics)

Thanks for the reminder. I read about that cartoon in high school, but completely forgot all the details, and Google surprisingly enough didn't help me at all. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a hard time finding it there too, & might not have been able without knowing who it was about. Google does not do very well for words used in multiple senses. One of the reasons the world needs a comprehensive web encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

Thank you for your recent participation in the AFD which closed with a snow result of Keep. Unfortunately, the nominator is not content with this consensus and is now proposing that the article be merged. Please see discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if I were to share those views on this sort of article, I would be very content to have achieved the present 80% success rate. :) DGG (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal

Hi. I hope I am not misreading this, you appear to share my strong misgivings over Skoojal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his self-declared mission on Wikipedia. I have blocked the user to prevent further disruption and abuse, based in no small part on his own words in the deleetd revisions of his user page, and I'd like to invite you in particular to oversee any discussion on user talk:Skoojal with a view to unblocking iff a set of conditions can be agreed which restrict the inappropriate use of Wikipedia by this user to further an external agenda. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amended posting on Jeffrey Masson page

DGG: I have posted amended paragraphs on the Jeffrey Masson page. My reasons are given on my Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esterson#Esterson.27s_reply Esterson (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)== Christopher J. Olmeda ==[reply]

dgg, do you think this [Christopher J. Olmeda[ should just be afd. --Buridan (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be a deletion request from the 2 authors, which, stretching things a little, is a speedy g7. I so marked it, to see if another admit would concurr and delete it. If not, AfD. DGG (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Olmeda

I declined the speedy on that, reviewing your notes on the talk. I've commented there as well. I've also watchlisted it in case we have any issues brewing! Cheers! Pedro : Chat 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Museum

Not sure if you watch my talk so I've copied the message. Thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure about postal museum. Fire museum can be fixed, I think. I just left a note on the talk and I'll work on it. TravellingCari 19:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis Take Manhattan rescheduled for October 4

Wikis Take Manhattan has been rescheduled for next Saturday, October 4, due to the rain predicted for this weekend.. I hope you can make it to the new time, and bring a friend (or two)!--Pharos (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EliteAnswers.com

Just an FYI, EliteAnswers.com article has beed deleted in the past through a AfD... I can't see the old page, so not sure about how much is different, plus look at the talk page for the article's creator. I'm not the only one for a speedy on it. But, JM2C. BTW, thanks for being an admin on WP. It's appreciated. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, courtesy heads up. I've AfDed this. Its history is ridiculous and I really think the new capitalisation is an effort to evade detection without any real notability established. Afd is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EliteAnswers.com as always I welcome your input TravellingCari 02:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perfectly reasonable way to go. I've been wrong before :). And now I know where to make the argument--after i've re-examined the article, of course. DGG (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I may be wrong here. We'll see. It just needed to be settled with discussion rather than PROD or another speedy. FWIW, I think you're right -- it's not speedy-eligible since it's not blatant spam and didn't match the most recently deleted version. I hope this AfD is allowed to run its course so we can get consensus. The creator is trying his best, I just am not sure he has enough material from which to work. PS: Stay dry! TravellingCari 02:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson page

DGG: In response to your suggestion that there should be a considerable reduction of the section "1998 Edition of 'The Assault on Truth'" on the Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson page, I have proposed the whole section be removed. See my reasons at the Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson discussion page at the bottom of the very lengthy section under the heading "Webster".[4] Esterson (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: Any comment on my last posting in relation to the "Webster" section on the Jeffrey Masson page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeffrey_Moussaieff_Masson#Webster

Esterson (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion sought on Mileva Maric posting

DGG: Could you give your opinion on a difference of views on a posting at the Mileva Maric discussion page? [5] Esterson (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done.DGG (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destination One

Please see the comments that I just added at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destination One. --Eastmain (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People ganging up to disrupt an article

Hi,

I found you at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. If you can spare a few minutes of your time helping out at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil, I would be thankful.

I am developing an article on words borrowed by Tamil from Indo-Aryan languages. I am citing a standard authoritative lexicon from which I find the words that are borrowed before including them at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil. There are a few people who seem to be intent in damaging the article by adding "cite" tags, "disputed" and "dubious" tags for the article and threatening to delete it within 24 hours.

Could you please help?

Thanks. Kris (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you need to be able to show that the word is in fact an aryan loan word, and give enough information to sow the meaning in the original language(s0 and in Tamil. This is the english Wikipedia, and though we certainly cover topics like this, you must explain the subject to English readers who will not know the words. A little more detail on the article talk page DGG (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I was one (of many, apparently) who was canvassed, I see that you are involved in the discussion. (Though I haven't looked at anything but the talk pages which the editor canvassed.)

As I (as usual) am distracted by innumerable discussions and tasks (and RL) atm, you'll please pardon me if I was happy to read that you're apparently helping : )

That said, if at some point you do feel that another set of eyes would be helpful, please feel free to drop me a note. - jc37 06:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had participated at Talk:Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil yesterday. Kindly have a look at revised Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil vote at its AfD. Thanks for your time Kris (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help restoring an article

User:Kikkokalabud asked me for help restoring an article that I had taken to AFD. I told him if he wrote a good article, I'd help. So, he wrote it at User:Kikkokalabud/Sandbox/Say OK, and once he passed the basics of actually having sources for his statements, etc. I put notices on the talk pages of everyone that had voted for redirect. As you can see by comparing WP:Articles for deletion/Say OK and User talk:Kikkokalabud/Sandbox/Say OK, everyone that argued for redirect has said the article can be restored. Can you do the honors of moving the article and talk page and merging the histories? Or can you point me at the right place to make the request?Kww (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alas, among the dozens or hundreds of things here I do not know how to do is this--I have never actually learned how to do complex history merges. I've tried, and others have unfortunately had to clean them up. I can do a plain restore to mainspace per the consensus that the chart position is sufficient for a separate article, but perhaps someone will come along here and offer to do the whole thing right. DGG (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go search for someone that has handled a cut-and-paste rename. Because the article was redirected, not deleted, the original histories still exist. Multiple editors worked on the sandbox version, so there's a separate history that needs merged.Kww (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on dates

As I'm sure you are aware, there has been a significant change in the past month of how dates are handled on Wikipedia. In particular, automformatting of dates is now deprecated as described on WP:MOSNUM, and at least one bot Lightbot is delinking dates in thousands of articles. This hasn't been well-published, many editiors are not aware of it, and some wonder what is going on. I would be interested in your opinion of this revert and the following discussion that was left on the reverter's talk page.

Re: your revert of the informative text describing that dates are being delinked ...

If the date style guide is not the place to let the average Wikipedia editor know what is happening with delinked dates, would you please explain where that place is? Isn't it important to let people know what is happening and try to avoid all of the continued discussion that is taking place? See, for example, this comment "But the style guide does not anywhere call for mass delinking of dates. The bot is making disruptive edits that are not consensus." left on User talk:Lightmouse. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how telling people what's happening will avoid the discussion (it will probably increase it if anything). But I've nothing against telling people what's happening; I just don't think it should be done on a guideline page, which is supposed to provide stable guidance on writing WP articles. Such "news" can be announced at the community portal, village pump, centralized discussions, relevant project pages, and so on.--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for your time. Truthanado (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wp has unfortunately no way of making stable decisions about anything. In this case there is a bit of a of a dilemma--although the theoretical advantages of linking dates was very real, any serious application of the possibilities was for future implementation. meanwhile, it looks terrible and intrusive, and there does not seem to be any simply way of sophisticating wikmarkup sufficiently to it better, given our need to be compatible with primitive browsers. Hypertext needs to be done in a careful and painstaking and unobtrusive way, and html for all its wonderful flexibility and accessibility is not capable of what is needed. I would very strongly support reworking the entire encyclopedia in XML of sufficient flexibility to provide linking for this and much else, and the ability to solve the otherwise insoluble problem of what is best put in separate articles. Short of that, i see no solution, and would not be surprised to see the entire matter reversed once a year. When I started I saw a number of things like that to which I could devote my entire attention, but soon realised I would have to specialize--and withdraw from MOS discussions very fast, just as I did from categorization. Not that they are either of them unimportant, but no one person can work on everything at once. well, maybe some people can, but I'm not included in the pantheon. DGG (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help on Rhys Williams

Thank you for adding the citations to the article on the sociologist Rhys Williams. It was good of you to express desires to keep this article. I take your point about notability of academics - I would say that I was actually more concerned that my recent articles on Robert K.C. Forman and Hjalmar Sunden are kept (the latter has certainly had major impacts on the psychology of religion).Thank you again for your message. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, quickly, gofixthem--Holm first, Sunden will stand. -- I've suggested to you what's needed, but I cant write all the articles myself. DGG (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have just looked at the discussion on "Rhys Williams" and saw that the result was "keep" - a big, big thank you indeed, as you were the one who got the ball rolling there. I see that on your user-page, you come down on the side of the inclus

Re: DeMille "warning"

Can you please provide a specific example of what you are accusing me of so I know where to steer clear? Thanks. --TrustTruth (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I think I understand your position, though I do not agree with it. Any blocking would certainly be appealed. Separately, it's not a BLP issue, but could you weigh in on the use of this type of source at Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement? If it is acceptable there, is it possible I could use this type of source at a "criticism of George Wythe College"-type article? If it's not acceptable there, could you weigh in at that article's talk page? --TrustTruth (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I make a suggestion. I actually fully share your view on the man and the college. A straightforward presentation without any special emphasis of the inconsistent parts is quite sufficient to show it to anyone except his supporters. What you are doing is overkill. Besides being unfair, it is unnecessary. All that is needed is to quote some of his statements. There's no need to go out of the way to find material to discredit him. I'm going to be doing some further cuts there. I do not think the details of his agricultural schemes are of any significance, for example. BLP is not just a matter of avoiding poor quality sources, but of innuendo. I'm a great believer in moderation being the best way to deal with articles on people like this. As for the college, BLP applies to biographical material regardless of what sort of article it appears in. Discuss the college in terms of what it does and what its curriculum is, not in terms of who is running it. As for the source, the thing to to is a/see if it is prominent enough to write an article about it. and then b/ask about it at the RS noticeboard. BTW, I'd like an exact source for his reading list. I think you gave only a selected part, and that may also be unfair selection. DGG (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the use of that type of source at Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement? Can I challenge that type of source there? --TrustTruth (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there are two sources under discussion. Source A is url=http://www.idaholeadershipacademy.org/stoutReport.htm and the other material at that web site. Source B is the journal, Evangel: A Ministry of Watchman Fellowship, publisher=Utah Missions, Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah.(for the group, www.godtube.com/watchman.) I assume the journal is consituted of material from its site? I see another journal said to be their publication, tThe Watchman Expositor.) There is a general consideration: sources are never totally reliable or totally unreliable--it is a continuum, and the use of a particular item depends on its nature and the purpose used. There is a particularly high standard for sources for negative or controversial material about a living individual, where in general no informally published website can be used except one by himself or his organisation and that only for routine bio or his own views. Negative or controversial material about other subjects also has to be sourced carefully--when taken from biased sources, they must be used in a fair and not misleading manner, , and balanced with opposing views. In addition, opinions from there--or anywhere--must be carefully attributed as the views of the author, unless the official position of the group. There are a few special cases. First, one can write a source about a controversial publisher or website that is itself notable. such articles have tended to be very difficult to keep to a NPOV, but they can be done. If the magazine or the website is possibly notable, I suggest doing that--I usually do ,for I think it gives a way or people to evaluate the quality of quotations from them. But this has to be prevented from becoming a place to attack (or defend) whatever it is that this group attacks. Second, sometimes a particular controversial work or even posting, no matter how wrong and prejudicial, becomes itself an item of general interest and independent notability, and needs to be written about. The classic example is Mein Kampf, and, obviously such articles have to be handled very carefully indeed, and with a full treatment of opposing views. They are always difficult to write, and keep to a NPOV, and take continual looking after to see they do not drift into a discussion of whatever it is that is being attacked.

I am aware of the nature of the overall group. According to itself, it is "is one of the largest Evangelical Christian ministries engaging cults, the occult and new religios movements" This appears to includes, among other things the LDS, the JWs, Christian Science, etc. and other non-standard religious movements. It would seem obvious that nothing it publishes can be seen as objective unless confirmed by objective sources, any more than any of the advocacy groups elsewhere.

As for the LDS article you mention, such an article is one that must inherently discuss groups such as this and present their views. So it can be a special case. We'd have to look at how it is being used or proposed to be used. I suggest you discuss it there with the other people interested in the topic. And, if necessary, bring it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard for a broader view than just you and me.

You appear very eager to includes this material somewhere, and i therefore wonder if you are have such a strong POV on the topic to make objective editing difficult. DGG (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not necessarily eager to re-include the material; I was just curious about the applicability of the reliable source principles to that LDS article, so I was just speaking theoretically about an anti-TJEd article. I don't plan on pursuing that. I think what happened with the DeMille article is that after reading the original puff article, I started looking into him, and the more I looked the more I found, so I was just constantly dumping more material in. The article absolutely needed a second and third set of eyes. Obviously his history is problematic, but you're right, it's probably best to let the facts speak for themselves. I concede that, when trying to balance out the puff article, I swung the pendulum too far the other way. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge versus delete -- Baobab

Hi DGG. Thanks for taking off the Prod comment from Baobab fruit. I am not fully au fait with the merger procedures. I guess what I wish I had done is simply do a redirect and left the contents of the referring article as a comment in the main article's talk page . . . is that an appropriate course of action or is that considered antisocial? Bongomatic (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MERGE -- what you do is to now place an explanation of what your intent is on the talk page of the article you intend to merge to. also list it at WP:RM. You will first have to get consensus, combine the text, and then change to a redirect. Myself, I am not at all sure that an article for the fruit under the common name for it is not justified, and I'd want to see what others have to say. DGG (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. Bongomatic (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Baobab fruit see also this page, which is one of several pages on the web with essentially the same content. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovan wineries

Hello DGG! I think you are referring to comments such as this one and templates such as this one. I added them in May after a large number of articles on Moldovan wineries were added in a short time, most or all of them by User:Serhio. (At that time I was putting various wine articles into categories and giving them assessments for WP:WINE.) If you check the article I chose as an example, Barza Alba (winery), it contains no encyclopedic information whatsoever except the location of the winery. So I added a comment and temple in this case. I did not check any sources - I pointed out that the article does not establish the notability. If an article does not do that, it is in danger of being deleted in my experience. The burden of proof normally rests with the article and editors who wish to keep it! Compare this article to Cojusna (winery), which has information about its age and relative size. This article was not tagged by me, since it had this additional information. I hope these two examples show you what I was looking for. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I never speedy or finish a prod without checking for sources unless its patently obvious that none are possible or the matter is irrelevant. This is a cooperative project, and what the original editors don't do the rest of us should help. I was hoping your field expertise could assure me of that, especially sincere there might well be a language problem for me. DGG (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian again

I have noticed that Collectonian has been bullying and deying consensus in relation to this article, see talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:My_Neighbor_Totoro I am not an admin and don't much have the patience to take this through whatever disputes/arbitration process is recommended in such situations, but I'm getting a bit sick of this sort of tactic. It seems to be bullying and it's a pattern. S/he also ignores consensus (again). I don't know much about the subject matter, but even I can see some of the grounds given for these tags are both wrong and defying consensus (what is the difference between 712 words and 700 that requires a tag? Why not just delete 12 words?). None of it seems constructive, it seems inherently negative, and my guess is that this is similar to some of the dragonball tagging (which I've been fighting where I notice), namely an attempt to build a paper trail to let him nuke the article quickly later via either a merge or AfD (and/or a dislike of the subject matter). Can someone please talk to this editor?JJJ999 (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, this appears to be getting resolved.JJJ999 (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: dead people

Of course I was aware that BLP does not apply to the dead, hence it's title of Biography if Living Persons. What I was referring to was that WP:BLP1E gives the same idea as WP:NOT#NEWS, and could be used as an example. Sorry for the confusion. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

Alert on WP:NOR. I just restored it, but don't have time for a lot of arguing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]