User talk:DGG/Archive 22 Nov. 2008

Topical Archives: Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , IPC & Fiction, WP:Academic things & people, Journals
General Archives: Sep08, Oct08, ... , Dec08, Jan09, Feb09, Mar09,

RfA Formatting

Hey DGG, I don't know what has gotten into you lately, but I know that you know what I am about to remind you of... but over the past several days I've had to correct several of your RfA comments. You keep forgetting to put the pound sign (#) at the start of your comments, which has thrown the numbering off. I KNOW that you know to do that, but I've fixed at least 3 of your comments on Berig's RfA where you've forgotten.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ooops. I'll watch out & remember to preview. DGG (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

NP I almost felt guilty reminding ya... and I just realized some of the changes were to Adshore's RfA... not Berig's...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks too

Thanks, I'm happy that my comments were understood and welcomed. I tried to look at the issue from a balanced position, I didn't consider that the issue at hand deserved a ban (I explained why) but the guy is really unpleasant and doesn't know when to stop and shut up. That was my last comment on that thread. man with one red shoe (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Article tagged for rescue

The Story of Maths has been tagged for rescue. -- IRP ☎ 22:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I untagged it. It was easier to source and fix it than it was to explain why you can't remove speedy tags. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As a side note, one of the things I like about you DGG is that we agree much of the time, but you don't cut me any slack when I'm wrong, which keeps me honest. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 22:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

and everyone treats me just the same, or at least I hope they do.  :) DGG (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Perumbadavam Sreedharan

Hi there, hope all is well in your world. when you have a moment, can you have a look see at this article. I was contacted off wiki about its speedy and after a discussion with the deleting admin, I restored it because I found additional sourcing that in my mind fully avoided any A7. That said, he's set some Malayam publishing records and I think he's notable, but I wondered about WorldCat holdings or any other tidbits you might have up your librarian sleeve ;) It may be that he isn't notable -- but I think he is and hopefully he'll at least get an AfD this go around TravellingCari 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ETA: deleting admin said she no longer feels it's an A7, so no rush to preserve it, but I'd still love your input when and if you have a moment. TravellingCari 19:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It never was a valid speedy, not even at the start. The very first version indicated he had won an award and provided a reliable reference for it. In fact, even without the reference it would not have been a speedy, so even placing the tag was wrong. Indicating an award is pretty clearly indicating notability!! And that speedy was placed one minute literally after first creation, which makes it worse. By the time the admin deleted, 2 awards had been listed, and sourced. Incorrect use of administrative tools and unaccountable persistence in a clear error in misreading WP:CSD. I think the article will pass Afd. I think even the version as deleted would have passed AfD. Unfortunately, none of this works have been translated into English &, since WorldCat is based on US and Canada, and almost no US or Canadian libraries buy current Indian literature in the original languages at all--let alone in Malayalam--there are no holdings listed there. There is no analogous union catalog for libraries in India, a major frustration. The most useful further thing to add is a WP article for his award-winning film--very few films in that language yet have entries in enWP, and since it is the national film award, probably most of them listed there should--a few do, for more recent years--see Category:Kerala State Film Award winners. All in all, a noteworthy example of newby biting as well as cultural bias. I will apologize to the author on behalf of the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. Don't know if you saw the discussion, but I was losing so I just said fine, agree to disagree and I'm re-creating. Asked her to at least let it go to AfD if it had to go a second time. I agree -- the awards, regardless of whether they're notable avoided A7 and it was sourced -- to the Hindu. From when I first saw it it was sourced to multiple articles from the Hindu as well. He seems to have been mentioned in India Express, but while Google News has their headlines in archive, the links are no longer valid and default to the paper's homepage. I've had a bit of a discussion with the creator on my talk and told him I'd appreciate any sources he could find in Malayam to add because the English ones, while 100% valid, just don't go into much detail and I'd like to add more to the article. Perhaps give it more context. I had a feeling the language issue might pop up in holdings as well but I figured it was worth a shot. I'm going to see what's available in English on his film - or see if the project can help me there. I don't even think he's marginably notable -- I think it's clear and if it were someone writing in English it would have been a snow keep at AfD but working against bias is going to be a long-time issue here so long as the majority of creators are focused on the need for English sources. This is part of why I love Bloefeld's work -- not just on the museums but lots of work in lesser-developed countries and areas where once we have starting points, they can grow. I don't get NPP at all. Unless an article is an attack, pure vandalism or other BLP issue -- why do we need to get rid of it right now. A few days or weeks won't hurt, let alone minutes. Anyway, thanks again for your help. Hope to see you on the 16th if things are less zooey here. Should be. TravellingCari 22:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the discussion; that's why i wrote above in such detail . DGG (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello DGG. It's very reassuring to see your comments. My faith in Wikipedia had shaken a little when this unfortunate episode started. But, after seeing the intervention of TravellingCari in the episode and your comments here, my faith has got strengthened than ever. Thanks! Salih (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A personal request

If you have time, can you do me a personal favor? I am considering doing an RfA, to help out and learn a few things. I have a request in for coaching and contacted a coach two days ago (no reply as of yet). You have seen me participate in heated discussions and everyday stuff more than a couple times. I was wondering your honest opinion on the matter, if you believe I would make a suitable admin, or am I wasting my time, or any other input you would want to offer. I have 2+ years and 8k edits here with no issues, I'm over 40 with a moderately technical background. I would prefer an answer, but will not take any offense or pass judgement if you would choose to simply delete the request and not comment, or simply don't have the time to look back and give an opinion. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

emailed. I always answer this question, rather than politely evade. DGG (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thank you very much. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 12:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Synonyms

They are not synonyms, but illegitimate homonymss. The taxa validly refer to species (at least tentatively), but not to those where they redirect to. See ILDIS.

I never have any idea what template to use for deletions, the scheme has gottenm very obscure. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, anything not absolutely obvious to any admin without checking refs or anything should go to RfD, and if possible you should try to explain, & give the link to the exact place or search string for the database. You should also notify the person who wrote it in the first place, so that he either has a chance to argue you are wrong, or else sees his error. (If its one person making many errors, it helps to explain things to him.) Presumably the error comes from using outdated reference works or sources? The only redirects that can be speedied are from totally implausible errors, or redirects to non-existent or deleted articles. The actual rules for speedies as on WP:CSD are straightforward, the application of them can indeed be bizarre and disputed. Personally, i tend to intrepret them quite narrowly, but I must admit that admins vary widely. DGG (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism (effectively)

What started out as a content dispute has morphed into a case of vandalism. The guy concedes he's going to get blocked, and is not interested in engaging. I have posted this on RFC, but it's taking hours, and I'm getting tired of undoing his vandalism. Can you do something about this less than 1 month old user?JJJ999 (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied to the RfC on the talk p. of the article, and suggested there the best places to get other views. Some might argue that you both might have violated 3RR, but I think that best left to one side now that the proper course of an RfC has been started. If the article is changed during it, that would be wrong. I'll say so. DGG (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DGG, I think you should step in for what seems to have become an impossible to resolve dispute. I don't understand how Dynaguy can object to Kopel and Hitchens opinions being their opinions, which is what the sources show. I mean, I've reworded it so it nows says that is what Hitchens and Kopel claim, rather than a negative fact, but it's almost like he hasn't read it. Nor can I understand some of the more bizarre claims (like Moore didn't oppose the war in Afghanistan). I've posted the exact sections on the talk page that show out of Moore's own mouth that he did, I can't understand how he can claim the inverse. Can you please just get him on this page. He's not interested in suggested text revisions, and he's just gaming the system with claims I "prove" sources he clearly hasn't read.JJJ999 (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In his latest incredible reply (and 3R again) he has not only removed all the text again, but claimed disingenously that (despite quotes from Moore himself to oppose the war) that Moore did not oppose the war in Afghanistan. It's gotten to the point I have to ask that you or some other admins look at blocking this guy. I can't see the point of trying to reason with someone so obviously blind to what text actually says. I mean, Moore literally says he opposes the war. His reply is just baffling.JJJ999 (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

JJJ, I do not know who is right, but I have made a suggestion on the article talk page that the particular point at issue may not actually be important, & that the article may more generally need discussion to improve the NPOV. I have also protected it for 24 hours. I do not know what version I protected, but such is the fair way to stop the dispute temporarily. Probably everyone will think it wrong, as usual. Thats why I do not like to block or to protect but in this particular case, I think everyone needs some time to consider. I hope 24h is enough. DGG (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to at least monitor the discussion as it pans out over the next few hours? Dynablaster (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

cant really do that, as its almost 1 AM here. since the protection is for 24 hours, my looking in again around half a day later should do fine. DGG (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is impossible. It has been four days, yet user JJJ999 has failed to produce direct quotes. Do you agree? Dynablaster (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

he has, in fact, admitted that he cannot do so, & that he reached the conclusion by extrapolation,. I commented there,DGG (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Novels Newsletter - November 2008

This newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI AN/I thread

FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pixelface_and_WP:NOT. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Product Planning article

Hi DGG. I see from the deletion log that you deleted this article in July 08, either because you were the author or in response to the author's request. I have no idea what was there, but it seems like a topic which should have an article - it is correctly referenced from Product Management. I'm prepared to attempt to write one. Although I'm new here I think I can dig up sufficient references to justify it. It would be interesting to know what was there before, and why it was inadequate - have you access to the text, or any other information about the page?

thanks, Roland. Rhanbury (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

checking back, for Product planning, it turns out that the article was messed up by a spammer, who, in finally removing the spam, also removed essentially all the contents--I've restored the pre-spam version, which was a minimal stub and ready for improvement. It's my fault--I did not check back far enough to see if there was anything there that could be used. Among the other articles he also got removed were . He had also attacked some articles which did have enough other content left, such as Product marketing, which will show his techniques. Anyway, I restored it, so now go right ahead and expand it. DGG (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohio Central Railroad (1988)

That was the only one. Here's what happened:

• The article was at Ohio Central Railroad.
• There was another just-as-notable Ohio Central Railroad in the 19th century.
• So I moved the page to Ohio Central Railroad (1988) and disambiguated.
• But then I realized that the article was actually about the system, and moved it to Ohio Central Railroad System. (The Ohio Central Railroad really is just one of many lines of the system, and there is precedent for separate articles with, for instance, Chessie System and Chesapeake and Ohio Railway.)
• So what I tagged for deletion is an intermediate step that should not have been created. Seems like a valid use of {{db-self}}.

--NE2 16:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

looks to me like the disam p. then needs some work also. I still think its a potentially useful redirect for telling them apart, unless you mean that the name with the date is now useless. I agree that it can clarify a complicated system if there are individual articles for the separate earlier companies. It is a valid use, but if if someone wants to delete something and I think its useful or good to have it, I don't delete it. Will discuss that general matter on WT:CSD. DGG (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll create a short stub at Ohio Central Railroad (1988) then --NE2 16:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

US state legislators

Hello, DGG. In sourcing article about these, are the official state government home page for the legislator adequate as a WP:RS? Or must one independently dredge what he can find out of news accounts and books? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about current political figures. They are reliable for uncontroversial facts, and for what the legislators hold to be their opinions. I would not rely on them for the truth of whether they may have been correct in what they may have alleged, or what may have been alleged against him. This is the same rule as for other biographies. If there is something there which would seem uncontroversial, but which has been challenged, there needs to be very actual RS evidence in that respect to invalidate it, not just suspicion. To the extent that controversy is real it needs sourcing, but eds. cannot make unreasonable claims of controversy to dispute the obvious. Which one is the problem at the moment? DGG (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes. I just mean the basic bio and historical stuff-- married with 3 kids, is a member of the civic organization of your choice, graduated from Hometown HS. And nothing COI or self promoting. I see Florida Legislators as an opportunity to build the 'pedia. Having tried to research legislators of Yor, I'm impressed with how little info has survived. I think all the great historiographers have gone. It may be that for some of our contemporaries, the task of recording their passage lies with us. Thanks again. Dlohcierekim 04:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

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

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Perfect rhyme

Can you take a look at an AFD? There is a 50/50 split on this, and your background is perfect for this. I think it is just a matter of good faith "lack of imagination" by the nom, but then again, I could simply be wrong. On this, I would trust your interpretation of the guidelines over my own. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• (Note I changed from Pharmboy to real name, tired of people thinking it was a drug reference)

you are not wrong. I myself would be tempted to call it a determination to remain ignorant. DGG (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your ability to condense into a sentence what takes me a paragraph fills me with both admiration and personal frustration envy. Thank you for your objective input in the AFD. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your oppose vote in my recently closed RFA. I would like to say that I plan to work on the issues that you raised. Also I would like to say that the /noms page was merely for keeping rack of who had offered to nom me and who had said they wanted to be told about and for my next RFA. • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RS/N thread

I remembered you commented in the recent AfD for Rick Ross (consultant); there is a related thread on RS/N here, and your comments are invited. It's an issue that could do with wider input. Cheers, Jayen466 23:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

not this one, I do not know the specific background and it seems too complicated to learn at the moment. My afd comment was much more general, and the current question is about the detailed contents of the article. DGG (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Check your edits on WT:NOT

I had to revert an edit you did that appeared to be from a couple-day old version of WT:NOT, as it removed about 50k of comments since. You may want to restate your point again. --MASEM 05:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

oof. thanks. I'll go back there tomorrow and see what the state is then. DGG (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

US Distinguished Flying Cross

are recipients inherently notable? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

if we go by our customary rules, not in my opinion. See Awards and decorations of the United States military. I think the general practice is the top 2 levels: which would be the Medal of Honor, and the trio, Army Distinguished Service Cross/Navy Cross/Air Force Cross. And even after that there are 4 more levels down before the DFC. This is a little artificial--if we actually were able to find full sources including the complete range of local & armed forces papers, we could probably source almost anyone at this level, and a good deal further down, also. I suspect we could source every military academy graduate, at least from the 20th century. Who have you in mind?DGG (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Son of a local politician. I came across a newspaper article that said he was nominated. Didn't check further though. A FIGHT TO FLY, THEN HEROICS. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centralia power plant

I have edited Centralia power plant, and I think that the article no longer a copyvio. You might want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centralia power plant. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dynaguy again

Really, this is past the pall now. Not only has he basically ignored my lengthly reply, and failed to offer any constructive criticism on the wording, but he pupports to speak on your behalf in these claims, saying "we" give you 4 days (and he means you, as he mentions your support earlier on the page. Can you please tell him to stop editing this page? He's not providing anything productive here. For example, there is now a source to support that Moore has been ducking debates aside from Hitchens. I have asked him for comment on how to reword it, and he offers nothing. It's clearly relevant, yet he obviously intends to delete it rather than modify the wordingJJJ999 (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I continue to think it trivial, but the current wording is OK. I think you in the end did find a good way of doing it. Congratulations. DGG (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Houston

You said, "might well meet PROF -- try afd if you like". I prodded the article because I see no reason to think Houston meets WP:ACADEMIC. Do you actually think he does, and if so which item? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

basically, I deprodded on the basis of the book. Though new, its published by CUP. It might become a widely used textbook. In this subject, you're a much an expert as anyone here, so, if you cant find reviews, please put back the prod. If they show up later, we can do the article then. DGG (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

CUP is a well known publisher, but the book itself isn't actually released yet ([1]). You're completely right that if the book became very popular then that would be a reason for Houston to have an article. But most books published by CUP and other academic publishing houses have pretty small runs. So I'm not sure the best way to move forward here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

the std for textbooks at the moment is ridiculously low, needing only two schools using it. But if it is still unpublished we dont usually count that. Maybe write him a nice note telling him to try this time next year :) DGG (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, in that case I guess I will re-place the prod tag. If the book does get widely adopted that is clearly a change in the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for AFD now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Because of the number of speedy deletion requests of mine that you decline, and because our relationship is rapidly approaching antagonistic, I would ask you to recuse yourself from declining any other CSD requests I make and request the input of another administrator. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) You are under several misapprehensions.

1. Declining a speedy or a prod request is not an administrative function. Any editor can decline such a request. I did so long before I became an admin, see WP:CSD for the policy on that. I probably delete more speedies than I decline. I in fact became an admin primarily so I could get rid of the junk I saw when looking for articles to rescue, and so I do. See my log for that. (or my afd, where I received almost unanimous support)
2. For a declined speedy or prod, by me or anyone else, there's usually no point arguing with the individual--just take anything you please to WP:AFD and get a community decision. Some speedies I decline are deleted there--often they ought to be, for the item may be deletable but not by speedy, & I often say so myself. Some prods also--that's fair too, the point of prod is uncontroversial requests, and if there's any question, then the community is the place to get the decision--I will sometimes deprod articles for the very reason that they should be discussed at afd, not just by me & I will occasionally even say delete at those !votes.
3. I never look who makes the speedy or prod requests until after I decide what to do with the article. I judge by the article. So my feelings towards you would be irrelevant. But I am at the moment unaware of prior antagonism between us until this message of yours. I tend not to hold grudges, so I may possibly simply not remember. There's no prior discussion with me on your talk page. We don't usually work on the same kind of articles. I see no substantial overlap besides Gen X and a few similar articles , where I totally support your general position in removing the OR.
4. All this said, I owe it to anyone who questions my work to take a look at it. so I have just done so. First, I looked at your Deleted contributions, to see if you'd been tagging articles for delete where my decline had resulted in their being deleted in an afd, and I don't see any for the last few months. Then, I looked at your contributions this week, and I dont see any speedies. Perhaps you mean prods. So I looked at your prods-- i see 5 in the last week Tom Killion, Kerry Benninghoff, Mario Scavello, John J. Taylor (politician), Scott Petri. They are all 5 of them members of the Penna legislature, and by repeated findings at AfD unquestionably notable. I cannot see why any experienced editor would ever have prodded them. And in any case, they were all deprodded by other editors than myself, before I had a chance to see them even.
5. I note by the way [2], where you ask another editor not to edit articles you work on-- Please re-read WP:OWN. (and his edit was the right one there, also.)
6. So exactly which articles are you complaining about? -- in fact someone yesterday above was puzzled about my deprodding one article in a field he was an expert, we talked about it, and we agreed to reprod. I do make mistakes. So I'm ready to listen. DGG (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to chime in real quick to Cumulus Clouds to please remember to assume good faith some more. I'm sure I don't have to (judging by your long time here, as well as the numerous warnings already on your talk page) but I just wanted to give another friendly reminder. Especially from admins who I'm sure aren't doing it on purpose. Anyway, seeya and good luck. --Banime (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied. --Banime (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Thanks for your kind note on my discussion page. Personally I was shocked to see Saleem Sinai nominated for deletion. That said, I was impressed with your willingness to take a suggestion in the spirit in which it was offered. I'm not big on walking on egg shells, but people seem to take things personally. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I called you once an "unapologetic inclusionist". Although I don't think that was insulting per se, based on additional, albeit indirect interaction between us at AfD, I realize my stereotyping of you was inaccurate. So, I apologize for it. VG ☎ 03:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I know what caught your eye most recently :). Of the influx of articles, there's 1/3 at the top, 1/3 at the bottom, and 1/3 about which the real question is whether they are worth the trouble to fix. So we're likely to agree most of the time. DGG (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Frank Hammond

His book Pigs in the Parlor (1973) may be more notable then just he is. PROD ends tomorrow. "frank hammond" and "pigs in the parlor" gets 9 scholar hits, book alone 38, he gets over 100. On google, I am finding mainly 'buy here' for his book, which is claimed to have sold over 1 million. This seems like one of those I should try to save, and I'm trying, just a bit lost as to how. He and I don't share the same philosophy, and Christian articles aren't my specialty, but my gut tells me that he should qualify. Any pointers? Am I wasting time and should move on? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have tried to give it at least a limping chance. I removed the prod tag, provided sources (one won't pass wp:rs, but demonstrate the books and ISBN numbers and best of the bunch to do this). If you get a chance to view it and want to revert the PROD, no offense will be taken. I need a little bit of guidance and crash course to get up to speed where I can actually help with one or two of these a day. Don't worry, I won't ask you to feed and cloth me, too ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it right to remove the prod, I would have if you hadn't, and if it comes to afd we'll see what others can find. It is impossible to predict what will happen there. . (As a guideline, an author who has published more than one book is likely to be at least as notable as the book--I think the any question of choice between them comes for someone who has published one work only. Not everyone agrees with me about this, btw.) As for the principal book, I see from its listing in WorldCat [3] a very odd assortment of libraries, but they include some major universities and main-stream seminaries: U Virginia, Kent State, Princeton Theological Seminary, U Michigan. It often does happen that authors in this genre may sell millions of books though their specialised channels. The claimed multiple translations are also relevant. I can confirm some of them [4] The gscholar results seem to show that it is cited as a representative of the genre. DGG (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thx. This isn't easy for me, my world is about code and capitalism, not academia. Definately a challenge, I will try to keep bugging you down to a minimum. Considering all the recent fuss, my confidence isn't too high when dealing with BLPs right now, yet that is where 'warm bodies' are needed most. btw, A glance at my talk page shows RHMED has taken all the recent issues in good faith, and we have an understanding. That is a good thing. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Laighin

There were two articles nominated for deletion. The Kingdom of Laighin is still there. McWomble (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

seem somebody got it by now . sorry for missing it DGG (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Skew-t's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tung-Wang

Hi, I want to let you know about my re-nomination of Tung-Wang for deletion. Previously you voted to keep on notability grounds, but I think if you examine the sources you will see they don't really verify him. Juzhong (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD queston

You denied the CSD and, based on your response, I am not sure you looked at the "whole picture". I said in the edit summery this was a "G11 - also a bit of G12 - http://www.molsoft.com/icm_browser.html. (Companies article, Molsoft, was G11 on January 11, 2007)" Your comment in response was "As reviewing administrator: I think the article not exclusively promotional -- speedy declined . & there's a reference. Consider a merge with Molsoft.." Perhaps you can take a closer look. There is no indication if the reference is about the software or if it is solely about about Internal Coordinate Mechanics. I tend to actually look at an article, look at is links and look at it's history before making CSD type noms. This article says zero about the software other than what is on the Molsoft websites download page. Special:Contributions/Eugeneraush shows it was probably a cut and paste from the website, perhaps by someone who worked for Molsoft at the time. The footnote/ref was added later when someone was trying to clean up the article so it would appear less "blatant". External links both go to Molsoft. Thanks! Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you did wrong. There are different ways of looking at these. My way, is that if it's an important product or company in its field, to try to find a way of salvaging it. There's a level of hopelessness below which this is impossible, but I do not think this one quite so bad as that. Let's consider Molsoft; looking at the deleted article, which was from before I became an admin, there is strong internal evidence of copyvio (the lines are fixed length; although this can be produced from some text editors, it almost always nowadays indicates copypaste). Given the importance, I would have simply rewritten it then & there,& added a reference. I cant this always, because it takes a half hour or so even in simple cases like this. I decide which ones to rescue based on whether it's in a field I can readily rewrite & reference, how hard the rewriting will be, and whether the subject is important enough--which naturally depends upon what I happen to know. I never thought that the article would not need rewriting, but i first want to think whether to rewrite it as two articles or as one. Though one cant see the ref for free, one can see that the authors are from the company, so it's almost certainly about the product. A quick GS search (or pubmed) shows hundreds of articles using this software, to confirm my guess that its important.) The alternative way, is to reject the article and tell the ed. involved how to do it right until they finally do it right. some people think that's better. DGG (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Diegos

Somehow I missed the fictional part. My apologies...

ttonyb1 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

no problem. Prod usually works, if they are really unimportant-- but even better, try to merge it. DGG (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

afd

I just nominated Oxford International Film Festival for deletion, if you'd like to weigh in. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just FYI, I've unblocked 71.175.247.168 after seeing it in Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely-blocked IPs. I gathered you did not mean to block indefinitely. –xeno (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

right, thanks. DGG (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cass Lewart

Hiya! When/if you have a moment, can you have a look at this discussion on my talk, please? I userfied the article for an editor and s/he has worked hard to improve it. My issue with restoring is I'm not sure he meets the notability guidelines even with extra sourcing. It was deleted at AfD and I was the closing admin. My thoughts had been toward DRV but the user is understandably hesitant to do so. I said I'd ask your thoughts since you may be able to weigh in re: holdings of the subject's books. I'm not sure he's notable -- don't think he isn't for sure but I want to avoid this being immediately re-deleted (as either a G4 even though it isn't or another AfD that might snow). Thoughts/ StarM 01:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

commented to your talk p, & I'll tell CofM so. DGG (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for your input. StarM 03:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Purple starfish

• Okay, I have some new thoughts: 1) You might want to keep your AfD comments a bit more concise. 2) Information that is shorter and to the point can be more effective and more useful than long and meandering essays under a multitude of different topic headings. 3) Forcing editors to collaborate on a more limited number of articles may help strengthen the encyclopedia more than allowing everyone to contribute their own articles on all sorts of marginal topics. 4)Focusing on quality rather than quantity encourages the use of clear and concise prose that stands up to peer scrutiny, especially in the case of an encyclopedia dependent on a limited number of eyes and minds.
• I couldn't find a brilliant deletionist (oxymoron?), so I had to play devil's advocate myself. I think these arguments are strong, and the tension between them and the arguments for inclusion are where the best encyclopedia is formed (forged?).
• As an aside, I enjoyed thinking about these issues and your comments as I went running just now. Along the way I stopped to inspect a lovely purple starfish that had washed up after some stormy weather we've had. Of course I immediately understood the interesting and beautiful creature to be God's barnstar, and I wanted to share it with you.
• I also managed to luck into timing my run, which is always a struggle as I am not a great motivator (I was trying to go running since this morning...), to a lovely sunset that went from light pastels to deep rich saturated red and purple hues. As I barely escaped the magnetic powers of Wikipedia and my computer, it was a victorious celebration, that I hope has cleared my mind to return to the joys of editing, discussion, and contribution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

yes, i should do some cutting. It was a rough draft for here, actually. DGG (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw you have a "very strong keep" rating on an article, so I take it my devil's advocacy failed? Your comment was short though, so that made me smile. Now if we could just get the banking families of Frankfurt to get along...ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion

If you have opinions about the proposed arbitration, please consider posting them to the WP:RFAR page. The Committee has seemed reluctant to accept cases. I believe they can be swayed by thoughtful opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Iota Alpha Pi

So, apparently, I declined a speedy because this article asserted notability, and then tagged the article because it did not assert notability. So much for editing on a Friday afternoon. In any event, thanks for the catch. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

that can even be right. I';ll sometimes decline a speedy because it gives some indication of notability, but if its borderline I will place a notability tag to indicate that someone questioned it & it might be worth further investigation. DGG (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

:That article is a hoax. I put it up for speedy as such. And posted it to ANI. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC) I stand corrected. It's apparently legitimate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

this is exactly why we do not usually delete hoaxes as speedy. No one or two people can really tell unless it's utter nonsense. I've nominated a few really peculiar looking things for deletion myself that have turned out to be real after all, and once or twice its been so obvious to people who knew the subject better that I've been quite embarrassed.DGG (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. My bad definitely. Although the problem with making a mistake in deletion you mention could happen for any article speedied for any reason. There were a bunch of things about it that led me to the conclusion I made. They kept coming one after the other after the other. Frankly, I still can't imagine someone writing that article and not clarifying the ummmm... issue. All I can say is oops! Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if it had gotten speedied it could have been restored. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD comment

Just curious what you meant by this edit? Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sir John A. Hicks

Did you put two votes in at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_A._Hicks one of which belongs in another AfD discussion? See this diff]. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see it was meant for the Pine Middle School shooting. Ignoring all rules, I have removed it from the John A Hicks AfD. Please forgive me if I am wrong, but it is what I would want someone to do for me. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! yes you got it right, and yes, I do appreciate it when people correct things like that. DGG (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• You did the same in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faceless One (Skulduggery Pleasant). I fixed it in my own crude manner. I'm starting to think you're a Democrat, considering your tendency to vote multiple times ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

We may vote more than once, but at least we know whom to vote for. :) DGG (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UFO categories

Hi DGG, In light of your well-articulated comments with regard to List of alleged UFO-related entities I thought you might like to know that several related categories are also up for deletion (nominated by the same editor). Cgingold (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

Thanks for supporting me at my successful Rfa! Hope to work more with you in the future!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor trying to force other editors to identify themselves

An editor is trying to force other editors to identify themselves on a BIO talkpage. Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Thanks
LoveMonkey (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I left an appropriate comment, if it is continued, let me know. DGG (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks DGG it is most appreciated. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

DRV on Shirley the Loon

The deletion of that article is being discussed, and I appreciate your input. And be sure to notify all who voted "keep" or "merge" about it too. FMAFan1990 (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dodgey sourcing of dodgeball

Would you perhaps have some sources to suggest or insights to offer in regards to the List of dodgeball variations article and its AfD? I haven't had a chance to add to the article yet, but I included mention of the best sources I could find at the AfD. Gracias as always. The Dodgeball article is pretty bad too. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dennis seems willing to work on it too as well as you, which should be good enough. I commented there. DGG (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shirley the Loon

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shirley the Loon. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bylaws process (ending December 1)

Per discussion at the November 16 New York City meetup, bylaws will be decided on-wiki with a deadline of 2 weeks to complete the process. Please read the proposed bylaws, and comment on them before the process ends on December 1. Thanks for participating!--Pharos (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding academic reviews for Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion

I only checked Amazon, and after seeing that Taubes had some book on diet stuff, I didn't bother looking anywhere else. Mea culpa. Pcap ping 12:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Article on author's first book

Could you have a look at One Team, One Dream and the related AfD? The article's creator (who appears to be the book's author) is trying to meet our guidelines and have an article included. They'e added some media coverage, but I don't know if it's enough. Thanks as always. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

that sort of local media coverage is not to be taken seriously--its not true 3rd party RS. I've commented accordingly at the AfD.01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for looking into it. I responded to your AfD post with my own comment. I'm not sure it's notable either, but I did take issue with some of your conclusions. Respectfully, CoM (as someone cleverly nick-named me). ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Wanis

Hi DGC,

Tmtoulouse cited Patrick Wanis yesterday as spam or for speedy deletion and i immediately responded by spending five hours including external links, sources and citations to improve the article so that it did not appear as blatant advertising. As soon as i finished writing and adding all of the information, you deleted the entire page/article before there was any discussion to keep or delete. I did not know where to write "hangon" or how to do this. Can you please assist me? What is required to get the Wanis page back up (restored) and who makes that decision. If you google, "patrick wanis" you will see that he is a notable person. You can even check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States to see that he is cited elsewhere in Wikipedia and that page cites a newspaper article quoting Wanis. Also, Wanis' page has been up since 2006 and now, that i went to update it, add sources and expand upon it, my work and the page have been deleted. He is now a PhD and i did not even have a chance to include that... Please advise.. Thanks, Chris CVBPW (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I can restore it if you like, but it will then go for WP:AFD fro a community decision. I think it will be very decisively rejected there, because none of the things he didd shwed the least evidence of beig actually notable. The article is a description of minor accomplishment, in a manner that I considered served only to advertise them. the only sources given were his own work in various media--he's appeared on a number of talk shows and internet sites--why should this make someone appropriate for coverage in an encyclopedia. You will need to show by 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases) that he is regarded as an authority in his field--by material about him, not material by him. Try to show the significance of the award for his journalism. Perhaps that will be considered as appropriate to show importance. I'm restoring the article at your request--anyone can immediately send it to AFD. If nobody does before me, and I don't think it's improved by the end of the week, I will send it there. People then comment if they choose, and the consensus governs. DGG (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Shout-outs

A shout-out is what I call an article whose content is basically "HI, EVERYONE AT SCHOOL (X)" or "MY BEST FRIEND IS (Y)"... where the goal is to just get someone's name mentioned in Wikipedia.

I don't bother memorizing all the CSD codes. I know the reasons that are attached to those codes, and I use rationales that should be comprehensible to the people who created the articles in the first place. DS (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

August 1, 2003

I know that we sometimes disagree on whether an article should be kept or deleted, and even when we disagree, I always respect your opinion. That said, I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [5]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting general question. Personally, i support as many such articles a justifiable. If we have articles on 2 or more (more stringently, 3 or more) events for individual days on he average, such a structure is appropriate and should be judged as a list article. I think we could fairly easily do this for the last century = 365,250 articles, and for months before that back another few centuries, than years, back to maybe BCE 600. And then of course events in country X--, and subject fields, at broader intervals. Wonderful fro browsing. Wonderful for getting the feel of a period. Perhaps your CRB will bring it to general attention,and thus be a good idea, unlike most DRVs of non-consensus closes.DGG (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Refining Articles for Bennet Wong and Jock McKeen

Greetings. You wrote on my Talk page:

I am not convinced that either of them is notable, and I fear the articles might well not hold at at AfD. Would you consider trimming them down to size according to our usual criteria? McKeen's ballet dancing is not encyclopedic material until he gives public performances that are reviewed, and a list of journal articles and book chapters is not usually considered appropriate content. I am planning to ask the opinion of the community, and it would help you to strengthen the articles as much as possible by eliminating things like this. The multiple press notices from local papers does not strike me as substantial independent content--is anything among there actually of significance? Have any of their books been published by a major publisher? How many of the articles are in peer reviewed journals? How many people have cited them? I want to give them a chance, and this sort of material will not make a good impression. DGG (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your fair-toned note. Of course I will be happy to trim the articles on both people. My goal is to have them in Wikipedia, and I don't want my inexperience or ineptitude to be in the way of this goal.

I will remove the dancing material as you suggested, as well as other items that fall into similar category

I will also reduce the Publications List to feature the most significant

You mention "trimming them down to size according to our usual criteria" ... can you recommend an article or two in Wikipedia that fall within this guideline of "usual criteria" so that I can use them as a guide in my trimming?

I will get to this today ... any further suggestions greatly appreciated William Meyer (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Our formal guidelines are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which dont don't help that much for the matters here, but in practice our criteria are best seen by our practice in similar articles--otherwise worded as what would people expect to find in an encyclopedia like ours. for example, looking at McKeen first, they typically want not every award, but only the major ones, and Boards of director and the like are only indicative of important if major organisations, and even then not much , unless something like Chairman or president. As some matters of style, adjust the references so they show the title and publication details, according to WP:CITE, enter translations of his work following the individual work translated, just saying also translated into _ and _ , and material such as "therapist in private practice" gets mentioned as text, not listed in a formal fashion in cv. Tryto get a little more of it into prose format. Can you how that McKeen is actually notable as an acupuncturist? I'll look at them all in a few days. The way I informally think of it, suppose I asked you, tell me what he's done--as conversation, not a grant application. DGG (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these suggestions. They are very helpful.

I am at work on both articles to incorporate your recommendations. I am in the process of switching from the Harvard notation system to the WP:CITE style; this is in process and will take a day or two.

If you have a moment, please glance at the article for Jock McKeen which has had most attention at this point. Am I on the right track? I want to do this properly. In particular, is Footnote #2 in the style you want? Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding my comments as I go to the same subsection on your Talk Page ... is this the style you prefer? Or would you like a new note at the bottom of your page each time I communicate?

I have worked on the Haven Institute article, and I believe I have the footnotes as you suggested now. I am still working on the Jock McKeen article and the Bennet Wong article, but I think I'm getting closer to what you suggested. I hope to have the articles presentable by the end of the day on November 18. William Meyer (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

see talk p. on McKeen, and on Haven Institute. There is no deadline, as long as you are making progress, You can let me know here when to look.DGG (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

I like your approach better. It never hurts for us all to be reminded to keep it civil, but I will not put up with threats like the other editor made. Needless to say, I appreciate that you redacted the comments that crossed the line. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me know....

Please let me know as soon as Bow Tie Wearers goes to DRV, as it feels like the closing Admin completely ignored consensus. Kinda defeats the purpose of the AfD process. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, Michael.--otherlleft (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Doherty (military historian)

Hi DGG was the wikipedia copyright notice always on the answers.com page? I never spotted it. Sorry about that. BigDunc^Talk 15:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Got your message on my talk page thanks for the clarification I thought the top was just a link to wikipedia and didn't spot the one at the bottom. Think I need a visit to the optician. BigDunc^Talk 15:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you review....Our Feature Presentation

Found an article at AfD that looked like it could be saved from deletion. I took THIS and turned it into THIS. I was still in process of expanding the article when the synopsis section got tagged as a copyvio. Per instructuion of the tag, and wishing to address the concern, I created a temp page and corrected the synopsis, basing the rewrite upon the official website and other sources, but not copying them. How do I getthe copyvio tage removed, since it has been addresed? I hate the thought that even seeing that might color an editor's coomments at the AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The tag is correct, because you did copy it from IMdB, which is absolutely not acceptable. You have to write it yourself. In any case, most of the summaries there are teasers, not giving the actual conclusion. For this one, it says " Cody manages to cast Jasmine, but at great personal cost". A proper plot summary for an encyclopedia would explain just what happens. Thats the difference between a TV or movie guide and an encyclopedia. When you remove the copied material, you can remove the copyvio tag. Unless you have seen the movie, or have a good review that actually discusses the plot, you will not be able to write a really good summary. (Note that most newspaper reviews also are written as teasers). For the moment, try rewriting what you have in your own words entirely, as if you were describing the plot to someone. do it without looking at the existing text.DGG (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the information came directly from the film's official website... but exists in other incarnations.. IMDB being one. The copyright is not IMDB, but the filmmakers'. Being in contact with them, I could easily get explicit permission for it to be used on Wiki... if the original text were to be kept. The temp article was moved to HERE. No doubt the tag is correct... but it had me create a temp article in a location that was incorrect and which was moved by another editor to a snadbox. I have since visited the article talk page and the AfD to clarify the Temp's new location. Now... I have heeded your advivce and written this: "As a child, Cody Weever (Chad Eschman) grew up pampered, spoiled and loving films. His mother (Diane Tasca) gave in to all his childish whims. As an adult, Cody decided he wanted to produce and direct his own film, but his mother decided that this was one whim too many. He sulked and groused when she refused to fund his endeavour. His own maunderings about his project gave rise to rumour in Buck Valley that Hollywood heiress Jasmin Darnell (Christina Rosenberg) would be starring in Cody's film. The rumour is untrue, but starstruck residents begin to confront Cody, and one by one lobby to particpate in the film. Cody falls victim to his own ego and ambition, allowing himself to be distracted and encouraged by the townsfolk." Now what? Do I need to get permission to even write about the film? To include any or all informations that the filmmakers ultimately own no matter where else it might be shared? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

as you see, it is almost always in such cases less trouble to rewrite it than to get permission. But there is no need for a plot summary if the film is considered not notable, and this depends on substantial reviews and the like. Whether the references provided show notability will be decided at the AfD. I doubt the presence or absence of a summary will be decisive there. My personal opinion is that local press notices about the local production of a film are irrelevant to notability, just as local interviews with a local author are irrelevant to the notability of a book--they are not truly independent third party, but courtesy publicity for local figures. I cannot tell whether the consensus will agree with me, and I will abide the result for the article. If the immediate consensus on this and an unrelated article with similar issues does accept such material, I think that we will need a more general discussion of guidelines. Using Wikipedia for publicity is in my opinion a downwards step for this as for any other the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, the author who created the original article is an editor with a history and no connection with the film. And for myself, I never heard of the film before the AQfD and the only person in it I have ever evebn heard of is Dustin Diamond. So neither Wiki or the filmmaker are using Wiki to "advertise" theri film. However, I do worry about many of the Future Film articles written by wiki-based fans or wiki-savy production personel. As for notability... I have answered at AfD... and will not be upset if the article does not remain, as if/when sources meet anyone's concerns of WP:NF and WP:GNG, it will come back. But here's a question. Is there something in WP:NF that mandates a reliable source must be worldwide or countrywide or statewide? Or if citywide is acceptable, does it mandate the city must be as large as New York or Los Angeles rather than Palo Alto? Tough Catch-22, as any source available online has a potential world-wide circulation. Just playing devil's advocate. However the article survives Wiki, it will be well sourced or it won't be here at all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The LA/NY question has been asked before. it's not that they are large cities. it's that they are the two national centers for the entertainment industries. The general rule is WP:LOCAL. In practice the applicability is defined by the community at AfDs, and tends to vary unpredictably from article to article even more than other things there. I'm not an oracle. And I tend to be somewhat of a deletionist about local institutions, because they shade off imperceptibly downwards. The accidents of sourcing on the web for local institutions depend on what happens to be searchable on google and google news. Once the various G projects have gotten all old newspapers and all current ones that let them, we will really have to face up to the inadequacy of the General Notability Guideline as a criterion. I call it Notability by Accident. I'd accept any consistent agreed upon policy as better than that, if it pays respect to the nature of the subject. The critical thing for me is not inclusion per se, it's the need for Wikipedia to be free from use for advertising. DGG (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bible diet

Hi, sorry about that, I meant to put the URL in and then had to do something else. I can't seem to find the article online though. I've wikified it a bit, but the article needs serious clean up. --Bethan 182 (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

ODNB

Hello David, I read at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Resources that you had an access to ODNB and you could provide articles. I recently stumbled accross William II's bio which was available for free through their 'lives of the Week' service, and I now plan to rewrite the norman kings' articles on the french wikipedia. Could you get me William I, Henry I and Stephen articles ? Thanks a lot in advance ! PurpleHz (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) PS : my mail is purplehz at gmail.com.

I have a totally unrelated question, but I don't want to add a new section. ALthough I guess I should? Could you give me a brief on fraternities? Are they inherently notable? Sometimes? Usually? Always? I guess it's based on the usual criteria..., but if you have any insight for me that would be great. There's a whole slew of Philipino frats up at AfD including a "list of". And I know how much you like lists of! If you're busy no worries. Holler back when you have time. Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia and your willingness to help me out by sharing your viewpoints. I probably should have told that young author their book would be difficult (very) to get included. I guess I was trying to be positive and hoping for the best... live and learn. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier if I could send them directly, because one cant put attachments in WP email, so please email me from here to give me your email address. If you also want Henry II. & Richard, let me know. It would be good to use other modern sources also; there are good recent bios of all.

Hello, I sent you an email through wikipedia. You're right, the Angevins kings would be interested too ! You now have my email address (purplehz -at- gmail.com). Regards PurpleHz (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't requested articles to someone else recently, to answer your question. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As for fraternities, my understanding of the current practice for US fraternities is that all established national college fraternities are notable, but (as for local chapters of all organizations), their individual chapters almost never are, unless there is something rally special. Fraternities at a single college have usually been rejected at AfD, but not always. Fraternities with a few chapters only, it varies. I'll look at the afd. There is a certain reluctance to include organisations in countries where most people here cannot judge the importance--this can be called either sensible realism, or cultural bias.DGG (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of Fraternities, I would tend to think the "Alpha" or first chapter of a fraternity or sorority Organization would hold a right to have a wiki page dedicated to it, as typically the "Alpha" or first chapter holds the most information on the fraternity/sorority's creation and history. --Tomblights00 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00--Tomblights00 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Woodhead Publishing Limited

I added some references to Woodhead Publishing Limited and removed the copyvio text. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerard Musante

This is beyond my pay grade. The individual appears notable but this new article is a mess, and I think that it requires someone with your experience to look at it. It speaks for itself. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

probably notable. probably not copyvio. He seems to have worked on it, but I too wonder how to explain to him what needs to be done. I'll try. DGG (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: relistings

Thank you for letting me know. I'll leave a comment at his talk page in a bit. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Fatality

Perhaps its time we opened an ANI report about his constant tagging of acceptable new articles? Count Blofeld 10:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do--I need to go back to sleep. DGG (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Crngrob with just 33 people looks like a lot of encyclopedic information could be written about it. Have a good sleep! Count Blofeld 11:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

David (or others watching), when you wake up can you possibly look to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of town tramway systems in Asia? I'd already voted before I realised it was one in a series of dubious noms. It's a universal keep so far, just like the others. StarM 16:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi DGG, thanks for disabling the speedy deletions that poor unfortunate was dealing out today willy-nilly. A couple of times I have put hours of work into an article just to have it deleted by some negatively minded person 3 minutes after they have put a speedy deletion tag on the article. I put my mild comment on his talk page before I was aware you had blocked him. Again, many thanks for your much needed assistance. Gubernatoria (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

heh I was aware of events but as author of one of the targeted articles didn't feel it was right to step in.Geni 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. He seems to have gone to doing AV work since the block expired. However, a lot of his reverts are actually restoring vandalism or other bad edits. I think I will restore the block. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen, brother. DGG (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been done. He's courtesy-blanked his talk page, and unless he decides to sock again we've probably heard the last of him. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind update. Most reassuring. Tim riley (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, DGG. --Efe (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedies

Alright, I'll try to slow it down a little. As for that particular article, I didn't think that every professor was notable enough for Wikipedia. Obviously, if there was something distinguishing that they were involved with, or were of particular importance to the school, then they would be notable enough. However, at the time I tagged the article, it simply stated that she was a professor at M.I.T. and was in a certain department. I didn't think this merited having her own article. If you could get back to me about this I would appreciate it. TheXenocide (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks for correcting my tag on Eric st-cyr. I'm not sure why I put a nonsense tag. Looking at that article, I wasn't sure exactly what was wrong, but I knew there was something wrong. TheXenocide (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just came to leave you a note on this, David. It wasn't nonsense, but it was a copyvio and I've deleted as such. No objections, of course, to the article being re-created as a non-copyvio if St. Cyr is notable. StarM 06:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks. Don't know why I forgot to check for that about StCyr. DGG (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Xenocide: Basically, being a full professor at a internationally recognized highest-level research university like MIT generally indicates an overwhelming probability of being notable, according to the WP:PROF requirement for being an authority in one's field. Places like that don't make such appointments otherwise, and to get there one must pass exceptionally stringent review by both that and outside universities, meeting the third party requirement. The basic standard is being sufficiently an authority as to attract the best possible students and other faculty to the department and the university, and their judgment on this is somewhat better and much more searching than we can do at Wikipedia. Such standing is invariably shown by multiple highly cited publications in first-rate journals, and such citing is another indication of status as an authority as recognized by independent authorities. Now, this may or may not be the case with ranks lower than that, or at lesser colleges & for them, we try to make a judgment if the record shows such recognition. . --DGG (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help. I appreciate you being so understanding, I'm still getting used to all these policies. TheXenocide (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

List of alleged UFO-related entities‎

I noticed that ScienceApologist, who was the nom for List of alleged UFO-related entities‎ had just changed it to a redirect. I reverted back and left a message on the talk page and his talk page politely requesting that a discussion be held before a move this bold. Just wanted to make sure you were aware, after the AFD which you were active in. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Zoho Deletion Review

• Hi DGG, Nice to see you fixing up the Zoho Office Suite article. If you keep working on it it could pass the deletion review. Suggestions: Find reliable 3rd party references for each statement - Note blogs, paid sources and self published references are not valid 3rd party references. See WP:V. The easiest technique is to find reliable 3rd party references and then restate the content from the 3rd party reference. This is very important as Wikipedia content must be verified as per WP:V. Also, company information and company history is more important than detailing every single feature. Also check for article spamming, someone was creating misleading links to the Zoho article headings as a stand alone notable article. If the article focus is rewritten and reduced to detail the company, history, market and primary focus (and all statements are referenced) it should pass the AFD. Note AFD timeline is 5 days. - Cheers - DustyRain (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

see my comments there, for an explanation of the actual nature of proper sourcing for this sort of material--and an explanation of deletion policy. Seems headed for a snow keep at the moment. DGG (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Improving Bennet Wong, Jock McKeen and Haven Institute

• I have given close attention to all three articles now, to address each item you suggested to improve these articles.
• I believe the only recommendation I have not fulfilled is to find a national newspaper reference. I still am coming up dry on this; however, I will continue my search.
• Have I satisfactorily addressed the issues you outlined?
• Do you have further recommendations to improve the articles?
• What is next?
• Please note the trailer on the Haven article regarding "Category:Items to be merged" and "Category:Articles to be merged{{#if:"... I think it is a partially removed tag ... but I have left it, not knowing if it should be there or not. Should this be there?
• I look forward to your feedback. Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

Due to the constant disruption of List of alleged UFO-related entities , I have entered a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_ScienceApologist DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Milennial era

Done. I doubt there's anything even you can do for that article, but you're welcome to go for it. It's a student essay. As always interested to see your input. StarM 13:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Make That Two

Hello David, it has been awhile since I have gotten you involved in anything. Can you do me a favor and look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Windman discussion. It seems like an unusual number of new users, only contributions are to this discussion, involved. With regards to the article staying or not, always believed it should be left up to consensus. In this case, I believe justice may be peaking under her blindfold. Thanks for your help. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

regardless of the nature of their participation, you really do need some more third party references. DGG (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David. I agree, the principle is marginal and possibly should have the opinion of the community lean towards a delete opinion. However, that should be based on the Consensus of the community as a whole, and not the Consensus skewed by a select few or an individual's own end by unacceptable means. As always, appreciate your gentle touch :-), ShoesssS ^Talk 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiger kidnapping

Greetings, DGG! Another editor and I have a disagreement Tiger kidnapping, and whether or not it should be moved to Wiktionary. It's a fairly short article and talk page, would you have the time to look it over and offer your opinion?--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 22:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I figured if you thought the article was more than a definition you'd be able to articulate reasons better than I. I'd give you a cookie, but I expect you'll be eating a lot soon enough.  ;)--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 05:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

No matter your !vote at my RfA (and not trying to sway it any, I promise), I wanted to thank you for the little kick in the butt you gave me. I was motivated to go back and copyedit both C. M. Eddy, Jr. and Humphrey Kynaston, almost doubling the size of each. I have been so caught up with the NP patrolling that it had been a while since I had looked back at some of the articles I had written (some as far back as 2 years ago). I plan on working on quite a few of them in the near future. Again, however my RfA goes, thanks for the nudge... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD related question

Hi David, sorry to bother you with this, and if it isn't something you want to involve yourself in I completely accept that and, for whatever the reason, understand. I noticed the following post on another user's talk page [6] and I'm concerned about what seems to be an aggresive and antagonistic (uncivil?) attempt at intimidation to obstruct an editor from participating and offering their opinion in AfDs. The post includes accusations, but no evidence of improper action. When I looked into one of the AfDs I couldn't find any disruptive posts (except, ironically, from others). While I haven't always agreed with your conclusions or votes at AfD, I respect you as a fair and reasonable arbiter, so that's why I'm asking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Improving Jock McKeen Article

I have cut the section on student achievements as you suggested for Jock McKeen. Do you have further recommendations for this article, or for Bennet Wong or Haven Institute? I appreciate your help. William Meyer (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Niggerati

I found your explanation for keeping this article [7]constructive and persuasive. I have taken the liberty of copying your comment to the article talkpage because i think other editors clearly need concrete constructive suggestions for how to research and improve the article. If you think what I did was inappropriate, my apologies and do what you wish, but I hope you will consider developing your comment into more practical guidance for other editors who may be willing to work on the article in earnest. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, and I was thinking of doing it myself. But earlier AfDs are always linked on talk pages, and people should keep them in mind when editing a article that has been proposed for deletion, since it always indicates at least potential problems. DGG (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I refactored the title of this section. I hope no one minds. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I do mind, & reverted. Considering my argument was in part that WP is not censored, it looks odd for my talk page to avoid mentioning the title of an article being discussed and call it "controversial Article"-- especially when I am arguing for keeping it , and keeping it at the original title.DGG (talk) 08:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not censoring something doesn't mean people should have to read the term every time they visit your talk page.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

if you think something is unsuitable on another person's talk p., , you ask them to remove it. As for me, you've now asked me, but since, as I read the article, it is not used as a racist insult, I'm leaving it up unless there is consensus against me at AN/I or some similar place. As soon as the matter is settled, it will go in the archives. DGG (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, the correct protocol would have been to ask. I will definitely do so next time, that's a much better approach, and I apologize. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

bit of advice needed - Scientific Research in Canda

You strike me as a methodical editor - for a while, Scientific research in Canada has sat on my watchlist - I look at it and look at it and then my eyes hurt and I turn away. Any suggestions? sub-articles? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This essay does have a problem: it's written to a different, albeit somewhat higher standard than ours. The level of synthesis is higher (for example, the selection of who are the prominent scientists), the bibliography more exhaustive than necessary, the writing is very dry, and it seems a little long. Actually, it isn't particularly long, but unlike most WP article, it's straight text. It's already a summary of what could be expanded for each individual section. And it actually started as a split from Science and technology in Canada. I think it does derive from an essay, probably by User:Jeff Atkins. I suggest conferring with him. DGG (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dynaguy again!!!

Without waiting for any consensus on the talk page or discussion he has AGAIN undone all the changes I made, and removed sourced material. Can this page please be locked to avoid 3R, and can you please talk to this guy so I don't need to have him banned. He's clearly just waited to see if he can get away with it, noticed I'm still watching the page, and mass revised it. His comments on the talk page are initially empty, then he makes some more and without waiting for a reply immedietely undoes everything!JJJ999 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• His edits are less bad than I first glanced, probably assuming that he was just acting per usual. He still hasn't sought consensus though. I've asked if you'll mediate on the talk page so he feels he has a good faith oversight for the editing, though I am unclear on whether he's actually going to make an effort to get consensus yet...JJJ999 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

XXXXX in rail transport

I don't know if you're watching it already, but if not would you (and this extends to the other regular readers of this page) be willing to keep a second pair of eyes on Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport? Not only is this showing all the signs of a discussion that's about to degenerate into a flamewar (although at least the SPAs have not yet started appearing), but whatever decision is reached here is likely to be pointed at as a precedent for deleting/keeping whole swathes of similar "this day in history" type pages. As someone who's written quite a lot of railway-history material that would be tangentially affected by this particular test case (although I'm not a member of WP:TRAINS, and didn't know these pages existed until the AFD), any defense I make of the existing setup is open to accusations of bias.

I appreciate that the last time a similar case came up, at Articles for deletion/619 in Ireland, I was arguing for deletion, but that was because in that case the articles seemed to me to be better suited to a "this decade in…" format, and that alternative doesn't apply here. – iridescent 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Note to anyone concerned: this is not canvassing – DGG has already participated in the AFD debate in question.

In general, it seem to me easier to justify Events in Subject or Place during Year, than Events in Subject on Day of the Month. There is a true connection with Year and it is useful both for study and browsing, while Day is useful only for browsing. I consider browsing enough justification for a list, but not everyone does. In any case, there have to be items to put on a list. For Ireland, there might not have been enough at that period to go by individual years, though I remain hopeful of what we could do with some expert work (and it's always possible to merge by Decade or even century); For Rail transport by Day of the Month there is (and there's really no point in merging by month,. As discussions go, though, it hasn't gotten nasty yet. It usually does help to not refer to other commentators at AfD by name, though sometimes it's necessary for clarity. DGG (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never thought about this type of article before, but I have noticed that in the United States there's an absolute fascination with anniversaries, coupled with a belief that they're relevant to the rest of the world (i.e., beefing up security on the anniversary of a terrorist's conviction). I suspect that the idea is notable and that these articles, or at least some of them, may also be notable for that reason.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

& I'd never thought about it as a national peculiarity... Spot checking, the German, Dutch, and Russian WPs have a section on their main page about events that day in earlier years; they all also have articles for all 366 days, listing such events. DGG (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Feedback?

Hello! I have set up Wikipedia:Editor review/A Nobody should you wish to comment. Please note that I am notifying a handful of experienced editors who are familiar with me as I am particularly interested in anything they have to add. If you do not wish to comment, that is fine too. All the best! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Long beach Motor inn deletion

The page should not be deleted on the terms of A7 (group) due to the following criteria: 1. The organization is notable as it is not a part of chain or franchise (Notable) 2. The organization is cited to show unusual business practices (worthy of being noted). 3. The article uses credible references and has appropriate links to verify information such as newspaper articles. Primary sources and secondary sources are listed. 4. The article follows a neutral point of view without advertising.

I am new to wiki, and need some instructions (if possible) to know how to recreate it. Thank you. --Tomblights00 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Tombstone00--Tomblights00 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a copy of the original from an adminstrator --Tomblights00 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00--Tomblights00 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the edit history of this page, and I have no intention of undeleting it. Under guise of advertisement of non-notable motel, the article appears to have been used for purposes of defamation. I do not advise re-creation, as i can think of no way to make it into an acceptable article. DGG (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I contest your argument that the article on both arguments of "guise of advertisement" and also "defamation". First, the article is posted with a neutral point of view required by Wikipedia. The article give facts without any opinions. References are clearly posted. Secondly, i contest the article is defamatory. I point to the fact that your contention of the article being irrevelant on point #1 and point #2 contradict itself. If the article was "in guise of advertisment" however point #2 is "defamation" is contradictory. Again, the article is written from a neutral point of view, without bias. --Tomblights00 (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)tombstone00--Tomblights00 (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. The article gave a description of a perfectly ordinary non notable motel with nothing to indicate notabilty, and then quoted information casting discredit on the way it operates, and more particularly on the owner. But there is no indication that the material, even if true, would make it notable. The fact that it was abusive could be dealt with by removing the negative material, but there remainder of the article would serve no encyclopedic purpose, being only a directory entry for a business without any claim to notability. The material could therefore be deleted equally well as A7, article on a business without any indication of notability, G11, promotional only (if the negative material were removed), or G10, page whose primary purpose is to attack the subject. Since the article also attacked the owner/operator, it also failed the test of WP:BLP, which prevents the insertion of poorly sourced negative information about people, or even sourced controversial information about people who are non notable, under any guise, and even in user space. This is a matter that supersedes all other considerations. The article presently transferred to your user space will therefore be deleted if you cannot persuade the community in a deletion review to restore the main article (deletion review is the only available route). You are in my opinion acting in bad faith to use WP for the dissemination of negative publicity, an apparently widely shared dislike of the manners of the non-notable owner. No matter how justified the claim might be, this is not the place for it. I warn you that if you continue doing so, your account is likely to be blocked, but I give you time to ask for a deletion review--though I am quite sure that it will not succeed. DGG (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A cruel speedy

I put SierraSil up for speedy or prod deletion, although it does have some mentions in sources (though the news ones are mainly press releases or industry publications of believers in such things.) I was not sure about the speedy, though the tone was quite advertisingy. Now the creator has messaged me saying I should have helped him write a non-advertisment version. I was wondering if you would give me your opinion on whether the subject's notable etc. enough for an article; would the subject pass AfD for instance in your opinion? Sticky Parkin 16:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. There's a message at the top of the edit window of this page from July, I wasn't sure if you realised it was still there so I thought I'd let you know. Sticky Parkin 16:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Move Novelty theory to Timewave zero?

In the afd discussion you suggested changing the name of Novelty theory. I suggest changing it to Timewave zero, which is currently a redirect to Novelty theory. The reason for this choice is that Timewave zero seems to be a much more common name for this stuff than Novelty theory, and somewhat more common than Time wave zero. As an admin, would you be able to make the move, or is there some process that should be gone though? Cardamon (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I can carry it out it, but there first has to be agreement to do it, and I don't see any clear such agreement at the Afd, nor was it specified in the close. Please start a discussion on the talk page of the article. When there is apparent consensus after a few days of discussion on where to move it, i can do the move. DGG (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discusssion here. We'll see how it goes. Cardamon (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Merges at SASTRA University

I see you've suggested a few merges over at SASTRA University. Please provide a rationale for these here as per WP:MM. Thank You!_(talk)raghuvansh^(contribs) 21:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thing - please reply at my talk page, because it's very likely that I'll forget to follow this up otherwise! Thanks again._(talk)raghuvansh^(contribs) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page for the article on the universityDGG (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)