User talk:DGG/Archive 42 Jul. 2010

Jan10, Feb10, Mar10, Apr10 , May10 , Jun10, Jul 10, Aug10, Sep10, Oct10, Nov10, Dec10

Turkish Research Program

Have embarked on an effort to save this one and have a very specific question related to WP:ORG, WP:GNG and organizations such at this one. There are significant number of Google hits referencing leaders of the organization (which seems to be very a typical way of giving credibility to the person making statements or being quoted in the article. The article per se is not about the org, but referencing the org provides significant credibility to the person being referenced. Can that be considered signficant coverage? Additionally, here's a very specific example where (I assume) as reliable organization (The Pew Forum) is covering a Turkish related subject [1] and explicitly links to another Turkish related organization This is linked on the Pew article. Does that link constitute signficant coverage? PS, thanks for Sunday evening forthcoming, been very busy in Manhattan and am now at 36,000 ft enroute west.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, precedent is that such research centers within an organization are usually considered not notable,and should normally be merged into the larger organization, unless their importance can be shown really clearly. I normally do not try to establish notability, but merge. It can always be expanded. This is part of our general practice about all sorts of subdivisions within all sorts of organizations. We'd need to show it is one of the leading centers in the field. The key thing it has going for it is that its director, Soner Cagaptay, is independently notable (but I trimmed his almost identical article, apparently written by the same publicist) . Journalists always give some indication of the role of whomever it is that they quote or interview, but the fact that someone is interviewed does not necessarily make him or the organization notable unless it indicates that he or they are in some way an authority or a leading figure. This is the point of the requirement that the source be in some way about the subject of the article, not just mentioning it incidentally. It has to be seen in context. A way to look at it, is to see who news organizations normally quote on such topics.

As for the article, regardless of notability , it's extremely promotional.I removed the excessive list of minor publication, interviews, etc. I removed ref. 4 as totally worthless--of course one thanks one's hosts in highly flattering language--it's like a book jacket blurb. I left the Clinton quote, tho I'd need to check it for context. If he said it at a talk there, it too means very little; president or not, it's just being polite. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, thanks some good lessons in this one. Thanks for the trimming as well. That was going to be my next steps once I got settled at home again.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Mathieson

Hi DGG. While I have no intention of sending your close of the AfD on the above to DRV - the consensus was clearly against my point of view - I found your closing statement a little interesting. I am interested how your statement "Sufficient sources for notability"[2] reconciles with a comment you made at the Mimi Macpherson AfD "to be notable a person must do something notable ... the GNG when applied blindly gives absurd results"[3].

It is quite clear that while there are plenty of sources on Mathieson (if you count puff pieces on "Australia's first bloke" as reliable high quality sources - there has actually been very little in depth analysis of his past) it is also entirely clear that he is yet to "do something notable". Yes, I know that a foolish consistency is etc. etc. but the two statements - so soon after one another - struck me as interesting. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I voted to keep the article, but was also bothered by your closing statement - it reads as a vote rather than a judgement of what the consensus of the discussion was (particularly the "We have always included spouse of heads of state & usually of heads of government" statement). Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I close according to consensus, whether or not I agree with it. I am aware that some admins close according to their own view of the arguments, but I do not, though I do ignore the statements that have no rational basis in policy. (Yes, I am implying that admins who close according to their own view of what consensus ought to be, or what policy they prefer, or how policy should be interpreted, are doing it wrong--as I have consistently said at deletion review.) When I comment on an article, then I give my own view about what the policy or interpretation of policy ought to be, in the hope of convincing people. There is no reason to think that this will be the same as if I close. When I close I act as an admin, carrying out the opinion of the community, which is the only proper admin role. When I argue, I speak as any editor, giving my own personal opinion. As for this close, the notability of the spouse of a head of state or head of government is an accepted special case, and the !votes at the AfD confirmed it once more. But whatever I thought about it myself, I would have closed the same, and I do not think any admin could reasonably have closed otherwise. The notability of a relative of a head of government other than spouse is disputed, and had that been the situation, I would have given my opinion, but not have closed.

For the other article, I was a little surprised at the close. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sonnon

A heads-up that Henryamasters is a personal troll who is systematically dismantling this wiki with vandalism. LOTAR is the abbreviation for LoHama BaTerror (Counter Terrorism). There certainly is a commercial school named "LOTAR" in USA, but that has nothing to do with that fact that all special operation units of the IDF undergo training at this facility. LOTAR is a world’s leading instruction center for Middle East Counter Terrorism, Krav Maga (Hand to Hand combat), Guerrilla Warfare, Special Weapons and Dessert Survival. Sonnon has posted 3rd party authenticated signed documents from the LOTAR Center in Israel to prove his claim: http://www.rmaxinternational.com/flowcoach/?p=644. Furthermore, Sonnon has produced the official documents, photos and signatures from the World University Games that Sombo was a demonstration sport in 1993, legitimizing his claim that he earned a silver medal at the event. The documents are viewable here: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=42485&id=1146428163&op=12#!/photo.php?pid=889543&id=1146428163 Furthermore, his official document from Virginia Commonwealth University proving that he is Graduate Faculty can be found here: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=42485&id=1146428163&op=12#!/photo.php?pid=907650&id=1146428163 These people have been trolling Sonnon throughout the internet, and this wiki is just a casualty of their ongoing defamation campaign. OceanNobleBP ( talk ) 00:13, 01 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this is a dispute between two Sambo groups. I have no way of judging the truth, but can only go by the sources. Nothing on facebook is a usable source here, since a person can place on it whatever they please. There are two courses: He himself can write to WP:OTRS, or this can be taken to the BLP Noticeboard. I see you have placed derogative statements on Henrymaster's user page, which is not permitted. I have removed them. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. However, the publicly displayed documents at RMAXinternational.com clearly prove the legitimacy of the claim to have trained the counter-terrorism base in Israel. OceanNobleBP ( talk ) 20:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rk post

Hi there,

A few months ago I did some work to improve the article on artist rk post, but now it is up for AFD. Previously, it was an unsourced BLP, and I have been trying to add sources to various BLP articles in the gaming industry keep them from getting deleted. The nominator removed all the text which was previously in the article, most of which I did not source, but kept everything I added or sourced. Is there anything you can do to help improve this one? It is a similar subject to Franz Vohwinkel, I think, another article on which you recently opined at AFD. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at the AfD; but the only good way to save the article will be to find additional 3rd party sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know - if I hadn't already added what I added, it would fare even more poorly at AFD than it is. I'll see what I can do, which may not be much. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24.148.0.83 asked me to search my library database for some sources, and I was able to dig up a couple. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Cable Channels Remove Agian and Agian Part 3

Hello DGG, after Active Banana another user Wikipedical is currently removing Philippines Cable and DTH Channels Article like SkyCable, Global Destiny Cable, Cablelink, Dream Satellite TV, G Sat, Cable Star Iloilo, Royal Cable, Cignal Digital TV, Telmarc Cable, Kalibo Cable, GV Broadcasting Systems, Inc., Parasat Cable TV and SPC-New World Cable TV among others due to unvalid reason taken from NOTDIR which is not mention about TV channels itself. I'm so upset why he removed the channel line up from the Philippines except other Asian and World cable and DTH provider still display their channel line up to present time in their respective article, but Wikipedical invite them to his/her Talk Page to clarify the issue. Please help! --Puppyph | Talk 13:26, 04 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is current at WR:NOT DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles by User:MAGPIETRAP

Hello again, DGG … Would you please take a look at these articles created by MAGPIETRAP (talk · contribs)?

AJ Kirby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Huddersfield Literature Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Magpie Trap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trish Coombs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It looks to me like a "walled garden", with the author attempting to boot-strap WP:N by linking them to each other … there is also the WP:COI issue with The Magpie Trap, a book that they appear to be promoting (and a violation of WP:USERNAME, if I am not mistaken.)

I don't think that they can be saved, but if deleted, they should go as a group … since two are WP:BLP, one is WP:NBOOK, and one is WP:CORP (the publisher), I'm not sure how to go about setting up a "group" deletion … these four may be just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm not "up" enough at the moment to research their article creation history. :-)

Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{05:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

DGG, don't know if you're around but this user identified by this anon IP and me is spamming up the joint. He's posted Kirby almost everywhere he can with the exception of the Foundation's executive washroom. I'm going to ask Jimbo to check on that one. ;) ----moreno oso (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I can't believe how many spam links this editor left. There were some off-the-wall edits to places where he visited, owned a home, his family lived - the list is almost endless. I think I got the majority of its edits with some other regular edits reverting dubious edits to their watched articles. My wrists and fingers are killing me. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go check these, and do whatever else is necessary. (The Festival seems to be possibly notable; I prodded Coombs, who has published nothing identifiable; I also marked for attention the article on the magazine Nemonymous‎. I actually saw some of this last night, but went to sleep instead of dealing with it. If he returns, let me know and I will block him. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thnx to all involved … I stuck a {{Prod2}} on Coombs, and a {{Prod}} on the festival, because I don't feel that it meets WP:GNG (i.e., one three year old WP:RS is insufficient.) — 70.21.13.215 (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there are actually a few dozen G News archive hits. I just added the best one of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the Huddersfield Daily Examiner demonstrates other than local interest. ^Bongo_matic 04:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nor am I--the article needs a more careful look. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America

The article List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America has been submitted to the Articles for deletion process.

As you were involved in the previous deletion discussion for this article, I thought I would inform you of the new discussion;

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America (2nd nomination)

Thanks, Chzz ► 14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Shenggen_Fan

Thanks for pointing out issues with the page on Shenggen Fan. I have rewritten the page in different words, but before posting wanted to make sure it passes. How do I proceed? thanks Stephan (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

write it on the page User:Sdohrn/Shenggen Fan. And watch out about WP:Close paraphrase and also remember the need for good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please let me know if this look ok. Thanks Stephan (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still promotional. Use his name only once. Do not include minor awards. He is probably notable both as an economist, & as an administrator,--see WP:PROF State exactly what journals he was associated with and what years. How many peer reviewed papers? Not everything in Scopus is in that category. If any are books, list them separately. list the 3 or 4 with the greatest number of citations. If at all possible, use Scopus or Web of Science, not Google Scholar (If you can't I'll check there for you). Make links to organizations about which we have WP articles. And take a look at the p. for IRPRI also--make sure thee is no copyvio. Remove promotional language, including from the infobox. Make fewer links to its own pages. I'll check tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added as much information as I could find and have also tried to take out any promotional language. Could you please check this once more? sdohrn (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DDG, could you check User:Sdohrn/Shenggen Fan? I'd like to finalize the page. Thanks sdohrn (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: HPV OncoTect

More than a year ago you commented on HPV OncoTect, suggesting that the article may not be notable. You probably don't recall, but I posted it to AfD. – Clockwork Soul 20:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commented there. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Forgot the actual reference? Geschichte (talk) 06:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oops, thanks for letting me know. someone already added it. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged synthesis at OR noticeboard

David, I trust you are well. I've just elevated a small dispute re an article History of wolves in Yellowstone and some alleged synthesis in the lead to the Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_this_Synthesis_as_alledged.3F. One of the issues that may come up in this discussion is access to the reliable sources cited in the article. I noted WP:SOURCEACCESS in my initial discussion on the article talk page, but that did not seem have any merit from the point of view of the editor alleging the synthesis. Should they be needed as this discussion evolves, you may have some insights that you can bring to the table on the access issue. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David. Thanks for weighing in on this one. I think it has been resolved and the article is now better for it. Your advice as always was useful and will remain so for other situations. I've closed the OR noticeboard discussion as resolved.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Yoruba Titles

An IP address 41.138.181.189, with a similar editing pattern to a couple of other IP addresses I have noticed lately (e.g. User talk:41.138.178.135), has been adding the title "Oloye" to the front of the names of Nigerian politicians in the lead sentence of their bio. See User talk:Demmy#Honorary titles for a discussion. The additions are like adding "The Right Honorable" in front of names, as in "The Right Honourable David Cameron ...", but they mean less because you can buy "Oyole" but have to earn "The Right Honourable". Harmless, I suppose. What is right action? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you say in that discussion, to someone who does not know the language or culture, it's definitely confusing. The general rule holds, and the right action is to go on as you are doing, and keep removing them. If the user adds any further ones I'll leave a note for them--this is fairly well established policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Google

Hi. At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Outline_of_Google you've responded twice (so one needs to be removed). Tangentially, we're still trying to establish a consensus for the scope of outlines as a whole (I'm a supporter of outlines, I've been organizing and defending them for years now), and your feedback might be helpful at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft#Restart. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have time to help?

Hey David, you were really helpful to me before :) so I wondered if you could weigh in with some more advice/help. This is outside your area of expertise I think - but that is probably a good thing. Basically I'm running into an issue with this IP editor. He's been making a lot of Football related additions which seem to be pushing a number of POV opinions. I'm trying to AGF and chat to him about his edits but I am concerned I have gone too far and been a little judgemental/critical. My concern is that I can't get across that his edits are not good additions to the article and are biased inclusions (well, I think they are). He's been wikilawyering and trying to avoid producing sources on some of the articles. I am at a bit of a loss how to go on... what would you recommend as a good way of getting other editors/opinions (particularly those not involved in the articles) into a multi-article "dispute"

For reference some of the examples of my concern are:

A lot of edits relate to refereeing decisions by Hugh Dallas in a particular game. He added what I read to be slightly NPOV material on the game [4] to the article then proceeded to add/edit references in articles of other people involved in the game [5][6] which seems to violate WP:AGENDA (i.e. pushing ideas about the ref when it seems irrelevant)
A number of edits to Lorenzo Amoruso which included dubious interpretation of sources and words which seem to violate WP:BLP

As I said - any ideas you have to help me get this sorted would be really appreciated if you have the time :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's at ANI, so I commented there. (perhaps the BLP noticeboard would have been a better place, but since it's already at ANI, it is inadvisable to open a second discussion elsewhere.) DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CANVASS, esp. Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner and Posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions – for example, sending notifications only to those who supported a particular viewpoint in a previous discussion Thanks, 90.197.224.58 (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to mention that I have no opinions of any sort regarding professional association football. I have never seen a game in my life, and hope never to see one, real or televised. I do have known opinions about WP:BLP and about fairness, even on unfamiliar subjects. (& for that matter I give even on my usual subjects opinions that are not necessarily those that have been hoped for; the opinion I give when asked here is my opinion of what WP will do, not what I want it to do.) Fortunately, when it comes to the obligation to avoid abuse of the subjects of articles, they're exactly the same: neither I nor the community here will ever tolerate it. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to comment (I agree it was a bit early to go to ANI with it) it made a lot of sense :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Google

Hi DGG, it looks like you voted twice here, so you may want to refactor one of your votes. Them From Space 23:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. fixed now. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian Workshop planning

Please check out Wikipedia talk:GLAM/SI#First workshop session.--Pharos (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles MOS entry

Hi, I have put forward a proposal that might address the concerns you expressed at Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Manual of Style. Many thanks, --RA (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huddersfield Literature Festival and Scott_Sonnon (redux)

Hello again, DGG … It looks like Huddersfield Literature Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has undergone a "questionable" update … most of the "references" are simply to add verisimilitude to recipients who are not WP:N enough to have their own articles, and make no mention of the festival … while a lot of people associated with it may be notable, the festival itself does not appear to be … a {{Prod}} has already been contested, but I'm not sure just how to present this one at WP:AfD … any thoughts or suggestions?

On an unrelated topic, Some Other Editor has raised some Very Good questions at Talk:Scott Sonnon#Contested references … any comments?

Happy Editing! — 70.21.13.215 (talk · contribs) _{19:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Onfit Training College: Speedy Deletion Tag

Hi DGG thanks so much for your feedback on the new article. I have made some changes based on your feedback that I hope complies better. Can you please review again and let me know if I've done enough to fix it up or if there is anything else I need to do? I have added mentions of the Government grant projects that the College works on to help boost its notability. I'm sorry I didn't have this information posted first. It is my first wikipedia contribution so I'm learning.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catz83 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The the article is improved, but my advice is that the community here will almost certainly not think that you are notable at this point. However, it no longer qualifies for a speedy deletion. If you insist, I will undelete it and send it to AfD for a discussion, but if it is rejected there you will find it more difficult to recreate it subsequently. I'd suggest waiting. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the excellent feedback and I appreciate the undelete. I can wait and try to make further improvements on the article to reach the level of notability required thanks to your feedback and more research on my behalf. I still have a lot to learn no doubt. I hope I can get there. Thanks again :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catz83 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG are you still able to undelete the article and send it for discussion. I'm willing to take the chance. If it isn't notable enough then I will just have to wear that and look at creating articles with different content. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catz83 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Registration" with the LoC, etc

Hello Mr Librarian, Sir. The last part of this edit looks desperate to me, but then again I am an evil deletionist ignoramus. What would you, as a benevolent expert, say? -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's not just that last edit that looks dubious. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Institute

Hey David, I have not been able to find anything on this school, except for an alumni association. Good luck turning that into your next DYK! Drmies (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC) is is a field where I have no particular interest so others will have to investigate further DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thank you for once again entering the fray! — Robert Greer (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chieftess Wuraola Esan

Yet another IP has taken up the baton, but learning from my comments is now adding the labels Chief and Chieftess. No more Oloye! Checking around, some of IPs are: 41.138.186.72, 41.138.181.189 41.138.184.242 41.138.180.136 41.138.179.225. I suspect there are quite a few more. Don't know whether to laugh or cry. Dr. Aymatth2, Duke of Earl (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists

neutral notification

Karnela Scekic

Please explain how this is a reference for the individual. I see no mention of her first name, and only a translated sentence that says "Guest star of the evening will be the Grand Darko Lazic - revealed Scekic" that contains the same last name. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting, still confused... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a very clear google translate version is actually saying and this is not one of the languages where i am likely to decipher the original. The original is at [7] It's not a very common name, and it is very reasonable that a 2008 winner should introduce the 2010 contestants. I added 2 more of the references, which seems to validate her existence and the basic elements of the claim to notability, and this is sufficient to defeat a BLP prod. As for actual notability, th

Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 13

May I ask that you take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 13#Category:New York City Ballet repertory by season, please? — Robert Greer (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inre Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 19#Stephano Barberis

I opined a "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephano Barberis with the comment that that the article "needs cleanup for style and tone, and the addition of proper (and available) sourcing" as a surmountable issue... but had never stepped up and put actions to my words. So, since the DRV was initiated, I've been working the last couple days on a rewrite that would address concerns brought up at the AFD... in order to show that what I believed was possible, could in fact be done. Please compare THIS to my work at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Stephano Barberis and offer an opinion. And yes... I think the "Select videography" section will need massive trimming. Thank you, --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jujutacular RfA

Are you sure you meant to oppose Jujutacular, not Joe Decker? They're both new RfAs, but your rationale sounds far more relevant to the latter than the former. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fixed it, thanks. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Talk:Back to God's Country (1919 film)

Hi. Thanks for deleting (CSD:R3) the page Back to God's Country (1919 fiilm) that I had inadvertently created. However, at the same time you also deleted Talk:Back to God's Country (1919 film), a legitimate talk page, where I think you meant to delete Talk:Back to God's Country (1919 fiilm). I'm not sure if there's anything worth restoring on the deleted talk page (probably just some Wikiproject tags) but could you take a look at it, and undelete it if appropriate? Thanks, Hqb (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed my error; thanks. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

epic browser

Capitalised as posted. Thanks for the heads up; as I did no more than delete a redirect to a non-existent page (as it was) I feel no urge to contribute to the discussion.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constructing Excellence

Hi, you deleted an article on this organisation a couple of years ago, but I think it merits inclusion as a notable UK construction membership organisation.

It dates back to industry responses to major government industry reports by Sir Michael Latham (1994) and Sir John Egan (1998, 2002) seeking to reform the construction industry, and today has over 160 member companies, including many with Wikipedia articles. It also undertakes government consultancy work, including compilation (with BRE) of the industry's annual Key Performance Indicators (included in the Construction Statistics Annual), and its efforts to promote positive change in the industry are regularly covered in industry trade publications. I believe I could produce an article that meets the notability requirements. Paul W (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just go ahead and write one, if you have sources. You'll need references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Trade publications are fine, if they are independently edited, and it is clear they are providing their own coverage, not just reprinting material sent them by organisations. The way we work, importance does not count here unless there are sources to prove it. And remember not to copy anything from their web site or other previously published material. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Queen's Rule

Greetings, DGG. I was reading through the archives of wikiEN-l, a noticed a post of yours dated July 12th in which you wrote "We seem to have adopted the Red Queen's Rule: whoever executes someone first settles the case." I didn't grasp the reference (Carroll?) and wonder if you could tell me the source of this rule (or any thematically related content), as I have been meaning to write an essay on this issue at WP:SHOOTFIRST. Regards, Skomorokh 22:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Butting in here.) The Red Queen's Hypothesis is a concept in biology (and business) that means something quite different. That notion will compete with any other interpretation. You may be looking for Queen of Hearts (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland) Abductive (reasoning) 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Hearts it is. Sentence first -- verdict afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both, Skomorokh 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYC wikiconference

Hi DGG - I am planning to attend the NYC Wikiconference at the end of next month, and am thinking that a panel discussion on the "pending changes" trial might be interesting. Would you be interested in joining such a panel and bringing your perspective? I'm hoping to also bring the perspective of a (newer) user and perhaps someone to speak from the technical perspective. Best, Risker (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what I'd like to do is the history of it, as a start--not the current operations. OK? DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an excellent idea, and I think you can present that far more effectively than I could. Risker (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]