User talk:DGG/Archive 46 Nov. 2010

ARCHIVES

Topical Archives:
BLP (Biographies of Living People)
Deletion reform, Speedies, Notability , Sourcing,
In Popular Culture, Fiction, Bilateral relations.
Academic things & people, Journals, Books & other publications,
General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb, Mar-Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2008: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2009: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec
2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr , May , Jun , Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec

A BLP

What do you think of this? ^Bongo_matic 03:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD input

Hi DGG, you must dread that orange bar.;-) But I'd appreciate your input (if you have time) on the following three AfDs:

Particularly the latter which is for an author. All three subjects of these biographies are members (or are claimed to be members) of this society. – Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colour, again

Hi. See: User talk:Rossrs#Use of colour in awards tables and some related discussions at talk:Halle Berry and the recent (months;) goings-on at that article, Angelina Jolie, Ursula Andress and a few more I've lost track of. I'm really busy, but think we're due for a good chat; we agree on a lot of things, really. I'd also like your views on referencing techniques. Cheers, David (JM) 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a general proposal there--I too don't really have the time to work on MOS questions, but this perhaps might be significant enough for the readers. I think we agree on at least one basic principle that current needs reinforcement: that Wikipedia is a source of information for users, not a playground for editors. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup && Thanks; I'll reply there later, as I'm out the door. Wiki needs to level-up to more professional design aesthetics and most miss that; i.e. my ref to Geocities circa 1996. I made a zebra-striping proposal at common.css that fell flat. The core problem is that the std header and data cell colours are pretty close to each other and there's really not room for an intermediate colour. I'd not thought of a dotted background and that might be the route forward. Thanks. I'll keep you posted. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kresimir Chris Kunej at AfD again

An AFD you previously participated in is being done again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kresimir_Chris_Kunej_(3rd_nomination)Turqoise127 02:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

borderline, but in my opinion, just over the border, as I commented just now. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice canvassing, too. ^Bongo_matic 07:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a note. It is right to notify people, but then it is necessary to notify not just the people on one's own side, as he seems to have done. Actually, as i have repeatedly said, it should be required when placing the AfD2 to notify everyone who has previously participated==this should of course be done programatically. Not doing this biases the process towards deletion. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for standing your ground and staying true to your opinion, even though it seems futile. Respect. Turqoise127 23:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Localhost with Ian Walmsley

Not sure why you removed this page. It is NOT an advertisement only page. It's a informational page for an Internet radio show like Diggnation. I don't understand why you removed it. I even contested it which seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Please email me at feedback@localhostshow.com to reply. Localhostshow (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could equally well have been deleted as A7, Internet content without any indication of plausible notability. I should have used both reasons; I apologize for not doing so. But an article with content including ". As time progresses localhost hopes to be able to mods on things such as XBOXes, Wiis, Playstations, computers, and other devices as well as bringing in more guests as well." is promotional. However, if, and only if, you can find 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--then you can recreate the article. We can discuss this on wiki, but if you wish to email me, use the WP email facility--link to Special:EmailUser/DGG. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if we remove that section we are ok then? And then we can put it back once said things have actually been done? Localhostshow (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find good enough 3rd party references for importance, I will help you make an acceptable article. If in doubt it is sufficient, I shall do what I can, and take it to WP:AFD for a community decision. Please see WP:N and WP:WEB for the standard of notability necessary. I also call your attention to WP:COI. (And you must choose a user name that does not contain part of the name of the subject of the article.) DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG can we talk via email? I clicked the link you provided to use the WP email facility link but it said no address has been specified. Instead of continuing it back and forth here I'd find it easier to email you. Again my address is feedback@localhostshow.com. Thanks. Localhostshow (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, my typo,. I fixed the email link above . DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you a message via the link you provided. Pending your response. Thanks. Localhostshow (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of List of magical negro archetypes in fiction into Magical negro

Hi,

As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magical negro archetypes in fiction, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro#Proposing a merger. Thank you, Bigger digger (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Muller (theologian)

I think he's notable, but the article is somewhat messy and could use some better citations. Can you help? Bearian (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC) 2 OUP books = notability for anyone. I'll check for reviews. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WP:COLDSTORAGE

Care to chime in here? Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Contested PROD Imagination Institute (place)

FYI, the "Imagination Institute" is not an attraction. It is a fictitious organization that was invented for the backstory of two attractions: Honey, I Shrunk the Audience and Journey into Imagination with Figment. It exists only in the form of a few sight gags in the queue for the Journey into Imagination. Now listed at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagination Institute (place). Uncle Dick (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, AfD is the place. Thanks for notifying me. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin J. Sullivan

I would like your opinion, as you are the expert in such things. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Biss

Hi DGG,

I was just removing the speedy tag I had placed on that article and we edit conflicted - I should've checked it out properly and I would have saw he was good for an article. I'll trout myself if necessary lol. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. perhaps you may want to leave an appropriate message on the talk p. and notify the other editor. The earlier material was in many ways problematic, and I think it best not to undelete them, but I will make it available to the ed. by email, for some of it contains references that can be used in the new article. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eggdrop

If you have a moment, could you look over Eggdrop and let me know if you spot any potential NPOV issues from when I added sources and citations back in December 2008? I asked Jehochman and he suggested asking you. I don't think I violated the neutral point of view policy, and no one other than Theserialcomma (as part of the wikihounding that began in 2009) took issue with the addition of references to what was previously an unsourced article, but a few extra pairs of eyes to check it over would still be good. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment there earlier today, and am about to add another. ~~

Scott Thornbury

Hi DGG

Previously you removed a {{prod}} from the above-captioned article with a summary suggesting potential notability. The article has now been nominated for deletion. I was hoping to see your view before I opine there.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 12:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commented there, and listed a related afd.

deleted article

Hi DGG I noticed that you deleted an article I wrote on Plumbline (music) about an artist named Will Thomas who has released three albums under the name Plumbline on the Hydrogen Dukebox label. I apologize, but I'm guessing my references were not formatted correctly. I won't list all the appropriate links to prove legitimacy but if you simply google 'Plumbline Transparencies' you will see many references to an album recorded with Roger Eno. Incidentally, Roger Eno's page has Plumbline in the discography. View here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Eno

The Plumbline (music) page has now been marked as only able to be edited by an administrator. I would appreciate any help to remedy the page. thank you, CH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotgrit (talk • contribs) 20:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was the second admin to delete it: NawlinWiki did first, but you immediately recreated it. I rarely delete in this field, which is not one I am particularly knowledgable; I did because I was basically just confirming another admin's deletion, and the article was about a project by a musician who did not himself have an article, or so the article read: "Plumbline is the moniker used by composer and producer Will Thomas for his minimal electronic music project." If Thomas has released other significant work, first write an article about him, including information about this project. Be sure to see include the necessary 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. Then, if it is accepted, and Plumbline is a pseudonym for Thomas which he uses for part of his work, normally we'd make a redirect to the article on Thomas. If it's the main name his work is known under, see if you can find the necessary sources as listed above before you rewrite the article. Alternatively, if you wish to consider this project as an "Ensemble", see the criteria at WP:Notability (music) for such. The protection against creating an article will expire on Nov 13, so you'll have sufficient time to rewrite. I placed the protection so you wouldn't immediate recreate the same article for yet a third time.

But you share one frequent confusion that applies to all subject whatsoever. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , not a directory. It does not include every verifiable musician or musical group in the world. There is nothing wrong about directories, and there are directory websites that serve that useful function; but people expect an encyclopedia to be a work of reference about things that have some substantial degree of what we call "notability" --and we define notability for musics and musicians in WP:Notability (music). If there are not yet sufficient independent reliable references, this is not yet the time for an article. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8

DGG, I have replied to your post aabout User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abdul Zahir charges at the DRV page. I have also removed your unfinished, unsigned stray comment from the User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives review from the same page[1], since you added this after the discussion was closed already.

However, in that argument, you state that the document was PD ("The brookings material is is as US Government PD source.") Do you mean that the end result, the Brookings paper, is a PD document? If true, that would obviously change the deletion. If not, and you just mean that the Brookings study is based on PD documents: how is that relevant? If I make a study of the works of Shakespeare, my analysis and conclusions don't suddenly become PD because the source they are based on is PD.

If you feel that, since the discussion is closed anyway, dwelling any longer on it has become useless, then I have no problem with ending this discussion, but otherwise I would be interested to hear your reasoning. Fram (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are completely correct; I had rechecked and realized that the material was the oroginal Brookings analysis. Much of the wording is taken from the US documents, but not document as a whole. If it were PD-SA, that might arguably be CC free content also, but it isn't. When I saw that, I returned to strike out my argument, and make the argument that it was fair use as a small portion of the report, but saw the discussion was closed, and moved to the other discussion. Unfortunately I forgot to actually remove or strike out my error, and it was perfectly reasonable for you to do that for me in the circumstances, and I appreciate that you followed up here. When I make a mistake, I want to know about it. DGG ( talk ) 13:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fram (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heinemann, Tokar

Volker Heinemann [2] of Green Economics Institute (UK) and Brian Tokar of Institute for Social Ecology (US) (also author of several books [3] [4] and widely read articles on major events [5]) both seem to be on verge of notability. These are the only two bios mentioned in talk:green economics that do not presently exist. Should their names be redirects to their institutes for now? Or are either just not notable enough, or only Tokar? Not a priority to deal with this but they do seem to have some influence in the field and we may wish to err on the side of inclusion when previously obscure figures seem to be proven correct by history. Quite a few economists are profiled in Wikipedia who have been proven to be dead wrong on everything. ;)'

Heinemann, Tokar

Volker Heinemann [6] of Green Economics Institute (UK) and Brian Tokar of Institute for Social Ecology (US) (also author of several books [7] [8] and widely read articles on major events [9]) both seem to be on verge of notability. These are the only two bios mentioned in talk:green economics that do not presently exist. Should their names be redirects to their institutes for now? Or are either just not notable enough, or only Tokar? Not a priority to deal with this but they do seem to have some influence in the field and we may wish to err on the side of inclusion when previously obscure figures seem to be proven correct by history. Quite a few economists are profiled in Wikipedia who have been proven to be dead wrong on everything. ;)

If someone is the author of several books from major academic publishers, and the books have 3rd party reviews, they are notable as an author. Tokar has 3 books I can see, but only one is with a well-known publisher--and a specialist one at that--and only it seems to have reviews (not surprisingly, they tend to go together). Your judgement is correct, that he is near notability--you can try, the result is unpredictable. Heinemann has only 1, privately published--he is not likely to be remotely near notability at this point. If you can get an article for an organization, you can give the name of the person who is the head of it, and redirect from that name. And you should write an article for Kennet, who is probably notable--she seems to have enough publications.

Being wrong (or right) on everything is irrelevant to having an article. Being known for one's work is what's relevant. Fortunately, we do not have to judge here who is right or wrong--we let the outside world do that.

But the group of articles on green economics and related organizations and journals have some other serious problems, and I have tagged some them accordingly, and begun some editing. And, can you show that green economics refers to what this group of people do in specific, and is not a general term, under which a lot of different movements and tendencies might fall? I call you attention to WP:Walled garden, WP:COI, and WP:PROMOTION. I suggest to you that for articles on subjects of challenged notability , a modest well-referenced article carefully following all the rules is by far the best course to pursue.

(and, btw, please remember to sign your messages with ~~~~ ) DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at ANI regarding User THF

DGG, I agree with your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#No_Legal_Threats_and_User_THF regarding THF (talk · contribs), how do you suggest admins proceed from here? You seem to be a neutral party to this particular issue involving this user THF (talk · contribs), perhaps you could carry out the admin action you have proposed? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why not say this there, as well as here? My preference is for him to take this as a warning, and I worded my statement accordingly. If he does not hear this, then it needs action. I'll look at it again tomorrow. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I posted this same comment addressed to you to ANI, as well. I note that you said in your comment, that a block would be appropriate, now, to prevent continuation. -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Lawrencewarwick

I have posted a concern at COIN Racepacket (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Wolk not Volk. Don't risk getting hued. ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting feature on italian wikipedia which may encourage reader participation....

I recalled that comment and thought you may be interested in this feature discussed on Jimbo's talk page:

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Highlighting_problematic_sentences

cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metapsychology Online Reviews

http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net They have book reviews in the obvious area. They are free unlike PsycCRITIQUES, but don't come with a seal of approval. Do you think they may qualify for a page here? ISSN 1931-5716. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De Gruyter - Trial (150 journals, 2. Nov + 14 days)

Hi, if this works with non-german IPs, could you please post it in en (Resource Exchange?). See http://www.degruyter.de/journals/journalsFoaEn.cfm) -- first register at https://www.reference-global.com/action/registration -- then use the access token degruyterjournals_MK -- thnx Cherubino (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this works in the US. It is a useful free trial for 14 days of 150 of the deGruyter journals, a general academic publisher known particular for its very strong list of journals in the humanities, especially the classics, history, philosophy, literature, linguistics, and religion (and I note that even the German language journal titles usually contain many articles in English in the more recent years, and even the German language articles have short English abstracts.). (After registering, the list of journals list will appear at http://www.reference-global.com/action/showJournals?type=byAlphabet ) DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Contribution Team

Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate on the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team, or WP:CONTRIB for short! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions specifically to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to wikiproject outreach, article improvement, donor contacting, and more -- in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks -- whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you. If this sounds of interest to you, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the Contribution talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 19:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love your input

I created a discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Tierney (professor and venture capitalist). Bearian (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Myanmar

You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Myanmar. The right answer is not obvious to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commented DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're my go-to guy on academic journals

Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law was created by a spammer account, but I'm trying not to hold that against the subject. Does this come anywhere near meeting our standards of notability as you interpret them? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment, all law reviews in the US are student-edited, so in that aspect it's not unusual. But I don't know much about indexing of law reviews to say more. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A/c Ulrichs, indexed in Lexis, Westlaw & Hein on Line, the 3 major legal databases, and included in Ebsco's SportDiscus, theonly sports periodical article data, and included by them in several of their Academic Search aggregations. Included in some of Gale's aggregations. A/c WorldCat, held in about 600 libraries in print or online. At this point, it's a respectable journal though until 2000 it was just student notes. Student notes do not make a notable journal, even though some are given impressive sounding titles.

Their law school needs to do a better job of teaching copyright law. I rewrote the article, which an editor using the journal name had naïvely copied from various portions of their web site. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verily, dude, thou dost rock! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts?

David, I was following the recent discussions on the Notability talk page and decided to explore your class-specific notability guidelines idea via this essay. Any thoughts?--Mike Cline (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

response being worked on. Basically, I agree with you, but it's not going to happen quite yet. The idea needs to build up support, which is best done by explaining at AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Trends in Islamist Ideology

Do you think this journal deserves a wiki page? It's a political journal published by the Hudson Institute, as far as I can tell. Its about page doesn't have the usual stuff that one can find on an academic journal. It doesn't even say that whether it's peer reviewed, although for political journals that probably doesn't mean much anyway. I stumbled on it because it's the main source used for Hamas and the Taliban analogy. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, its volumes have OCLC numbers [10], but no libraries seem to hold any of them? Doesn't seem to have an ISSN even although that in itself is probably not an issue. The insistence with which that 'about' page repeats "war of ideas" next to "war on terrorism" sounds more propagandistic than scholarly, but I could be wrong. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

working on it DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on this? It was created as a redirect. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrichs shows it as a semi-annual series, with print ISSN 1940-834X, online ISSN 1940-8358, and home page at [11]. The online version is now open access. Libraries sometimes catalog such series as a series, or as individual volumes, and it is not unusual to have OCLC and ISBN numbers for both ways. But it puzzles me that so few libraries are listed for what would seem an important series from a specialist publisher. I think a redirect to the Hudson Institute would be the right way to handle it for now DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trucost

See Talk:Trucost. Best to answer there. There has been no copyvio, someone needs to talk to User:Bearcat.

Also see talk:green economics. There was no copyvio there either, the text was taken from an older Wikipedia version not visible to all users but republished at WordIQ from the pre-2007 version (which probably got mushed into something else with no proper green economics redirect).

Now that the World Bank is saying this is its next big thing, TEEB etc., and the biodiversity agreement is in place (see [12]) this is a very central and non-controversial aspect of economics. So having incomplete or US-biased or ideologically-attacked articles on the subject is unacceptable and some slack time is required to get these in shape. Note also that articles are listed as not having references that cite many other articles that do have them. this may be out of form but it isn't wrong.and deletionism makes it very hard to improve these critical articles.

It would help to get green economy/green economics into the more appropriate economics and finance wikiprojects. Seems to me the distinction made in the pre-2007 articles is still valid, with "green economics" describing practices or factors in valuation shared in several older schools/theories, sort of part of green politics, while ecological economics is the neoclassical economic subfield where TEEB etc. are rooted.

Regarding deletion of page "Imaginative Education Research Group"

I am fairly new to Wikipedia and am therefore prone to making mistakes. I see that the article "Imaginative Education Research Group" that I created was deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I am however confused on exactly what this means. I had thought when I posted the page that it would meet this criterion by having two print sources regarding the topic. I can see that is not the case since it was deleted. I may try to make a better version of this article in the future and it would help me if you could clarify for me how my first version was deficient, it would help greatly. Was it in the wording I used for the topic? Was it in the number of references I had? I would appreciate any feed back you can give. You can post your reply here or on my talk page

Thank you for your time dedicated to keeping up the Wikipedia standards.

--Lexandalf (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

working on it. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Please understand that I am not giving you my personal feelings, but trying to explain the consensus at Wikipedia, what is generally expected. The problem is that while Kieran Egan is notable, this is apparently a centre for the promulgation of his ideas; that is much less likely to be notable, and there was nothing in the article to indicate otherwise. In order to warrant an article this would need good 3rd party published sources referring substantially to the work of the group. None of the sources listed were 3rd party--they were all either from the group, or by Egan. Wikipedia , and many other reference works, is oriented to emphasise people. The best course of action will be to add a little more about the group to the article on him. Then it will be possible to make a redirect, so that someone searching for the group will find at least some information. If you need help with that, ask me. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed with Michael Terman!

Hi David.

Thank you again for helping me with several entries for psychiatrists. Your advice was very helpful. Now I have another question/favor to ask. Would you please tell me where you think I need to add references to fix my entry for psychologist Michael Terman? I thought I had done a better job with that entry than I had done for others, which were up much longer and not criticized for insufficient references (for example, the Harold Alan Pincus entry I published when I worked at Columbia).

Thanks so much, Saenger (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the delayed response. One difference between an essay and a Wikipedia encyclopedia article, is that an essay is normally free-standing--whatever background the reader needs must be explicitly given. The art of non-fiction writing consists in part of integrating the necessary information into the essay without causing the reader to lose interest. The encyclopedia article, on the other hand,is intended to be concise, and uses hyperlinks to give the background information. So an article about the person should be about his own career and contributions, not the field in general. (I'm thinking in particular of the 5th paragraph in section 2, and the 2nd in section 3.) Since he is so much a leading figure in his field, it would be appropriate to mention him once or twice --and only once or twice--in subject articles--look for ones which use his papers as references. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, David! I appreciate your feedback.Saenger (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Microbiology

Hi DGG--

If you have a moment (ever!), could you have a look at this journal and see if you can easily put some meat on its bones? I don't know nuttin' 'bout no impact factors, for instance. Thanks for any help you can offer, Drmies (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to get to something either immediately or weeks later.

It's a long established journal of minor notability. As of 2010, they're open access. They're in Web of Science, Scopus and essentially every relevant subject field index. JCR Impact factor for 2009 is 1.8,which sounds great, but microbiology is a field with very high citation density, so they're only 66th out of 95. But still within our usual cutoff. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! You know what, I'll go to the library today and dedicate my visit to you. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for an academic

Hi DGG

There is an AfD discussion about Herman Phaff. You can see my thinking at that page. Given that notability and non-notability of academics is a matter to which you have given a great deal of thought, as well as your access to citation databases other than Google scholar, I was hoping you might be able to (a) opine; and (b) elucidate the relevant arguments that have been persuasive one way or another in similar discussions.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 05:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I filed an WP:AN report over that and similar behavior from the nominator. We don't want this to become another drama of the magnitude that surrounded User:Tothwolf, so some clear signals need to be sent early on. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jungle book

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

Just curious

How this edit added the same link to "livelink.com" but identified the link as in fact being three different sources. Mistake? [13].Bali ultimate (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

slip of the past command. Glad you told me. I'll fix them. and add a few more. -- actually a few dozen more (You could of course have fixed them yourself, but I'd still have been glad to have been told my mistake. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did fix it. Happy to help.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British villages

Hi. We have amajor problem on here in that many British small villages and hamlets only have a few scraps of info online to expand and are likely to remain short stubs for a very long time. I tried expandng some villages in Devon the other day to no avail. I was wondering what you would think of a merge of the Hamlet/village subs tubs by county into lists like User:Dr. Blofeld/List of populated places in the Highlands. This way those articles without mcuh info can be summarised in a list until some time in the future info becomes vailable to expand them. This would make it much more comprhensive and rather than having to sift through scores of articles to get the same one liner it could be redirected to lists and at least a referenced summary be found. Also these villages should have sourced population data. Obviously if there is enough info for a speerate article/the article is beyond a small stub then seperate articles can exist. And when somebody has enough info and wants to expand it they can branch out into a seperate article on it. If you think this is a good idea I'm considering making a proposal to the UK project. I know there are already some people in favour of doing this who are working on Camridgeshire villages.. Yes we should be encouraging editors to expand the stubs but the fact is the vast majority are unedited and likely to remain short stubs for years and makes it frustrating when browsing through the categories.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be done country by country. That we give articles for all populated places is a general guideline here, and a very well established one. If you would like to change it, the place is the Village Pump, and it would need a centralised discussion. And that there is no deadline for improvements is such a basic principle that I would think that we would need a separate decision on this before even starting to think about the villages. I would very strongly oppose changing either the general principle, the rule for villages, or the UK counties for the following reasons:

.The example you give indicates a full paragraph of information, a map, and a photograph, which seem better suited for an article. A list containing dozens of sections of the size that is there would be extremely unwieldy. (If the decision is to combine, it should be done as a combination article, not a list)
.There is always material to add in the future. As a minimum, there are successive census returns, and earlier maps. There are probably agricultural production statistics. What schools serve it or served it? What churches? Does if figure in early tourist guidebookss? There is always local history: when was it first populated? who were the landlords? who the overlords (by whatever title) Were there enclosure acts? Are there prehistoric field marks, or whatever? Was there emigration from the village to a particular area? Is there perhaps some historic personality who was born there or lived there, perhaps as a curate?
And it may not be so long. We;'re emphasising class projects--articles like this are idea for local schools, both as individual projects and joint work.
If we were going to do this, the UK villages are exactly the wrong area to start with--there is so much local material easily available. It might make more sense to do it in countries where only the basic data from the last sentence^{[clarification needed]} and the geographic coordinates are available now, where large numbers of editors who can use the local language are unlikely, and where online and print sources are few.
These are articles with metadata, amenable to treatment by automated processes, and suitable for first steps into a semantic wiki. This isn;t just about the future--many existing articles for many countries have been done this way. Not everyone here supports making Wikipedia into a fully semantic wiki, with coding for all properties and text. Myself, I'm not sure: though I know the great advantages in potential usability, I also know the difficulty it would cause beginners in writing articles. But we should keep what elements we do have.
If the categories are unmanageable, there should be some way of subdividing them. Villages in Devon, though, is only 438 items, and this is not too many to deal with.

What we should do, is to make a list as well as a category for each of them: a list giving in fact just the name, current population, and coordinates. I like lists--they are, as you say, readily comprehensible. But they're no reason to disturb the existing articles. I wouldn't necessarily oppose starting with a list in an area where we have only very scant information. Not the UK. I consider the village stubs there core material in the encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a highly optimistic approach. The fact is that the majority are short stubs and the info found on tiny UK hamlets on the web is very low. The amount of people actually borrowing local history books is extremely low and most of the one liners are likely to remain so for years, I was suggesting that those ones are directed into a list and then if somebody has a local history book on them they can write a proper article. My point was this exactly for the UK that many of them are extremely poor articles and might be better organized for the time being in the list precisely to hide how embarrsasingly short many of them are. In an ideal world we'd have full articles on every settlement. Being comprehensive is important and if people have to browse through several hundred articles just to get little nothing when they could view a summary in a list then I think that is a better solution for starters. I guess we have to wait ten years or so...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in here, but with English villages there will certainly be easily available sources offline. I have a small collection of books covering Leicestershire, e.g. Pevsner and Mee - both of which produced volumes dedicated to each county in the country and with sufficient information for a decently-sourced short article on each village. There are also historical trade directories available freely online. I doubt that Leicestershire is unusual in the number of books that exist covering virtually all the villages within it, so it may take time, but I think it's best to leave these stubs and let them grow over time. --Michig (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And GENUKI will have something to say about most places (possibly patchy as it's county-by-county: certainly very thorough for Yorkshire) and is a useful External Link to add as providing access to sources of information on the village, or the parish of which it forms/ed part. I've created a group of templates {{Genukiwry}} (wry=West Riding of Yorkshire) etc, for use in adding such an EL. PamD (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also puzzled as to what sort of use of Wikipedia Dr B is thinking of, where readers have to "sift through scores of articles to get the same one liner". Unless they are doing a survey of Wikipedia's coverage of UK villages, why would they need to do so? A stub on a village, with an appropriate category and links to its parent areas (county, district, perhaps parish), is already a valuable little article from which a reader can be directed to whatever relevant information exists in the encyclopedia, and editors so inclined can add maps, coordinates, Genuki links, information gleaned from http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/, redirects from alternative spellings of the name, links from other articles, etc. PamD (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't simply assume that a hamlet of 100 people has only had a few thousand inhabitants in the last thousand years, as the Agricultural revolution in the nineteenth century dramatically reduced the population of much of rural Britain. So there are many hamlets today which once were much larger. As more old data gets uploaded to Wiki so the importance of these places to Wikipedia is likely to increase. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree folks, I'm just wondering if it would be best to store the information that currently exists on here in a tabled list if the info currently displayed is extremely low. Then when somebody has information they can branch out into articles. I know that virutally most places can be expanded, the problem is that they aren't being expanded and many of them, especially Scottish villages, contain no information, not even population data. I thought a redirect to a list with population data and a village summary would be a better solution for the time being, but I guess the articles would have to be written at somepoint so that would be a waste of time. As for readers have to "sift through scores of articles to get the same one liner" I'm talking about the readers whoi want to browse through the categories and see some decent articles but so many of them are small stubs that they literally have to sift through them to find something readable. The frustrating thing for me is that I try to expand short stubs like Aberarder and could barely find anything on it on the web other than that there appears to be two villages with that name in Scotland. How many people exactly have books with detailed coverage of it? SImilarly I tried googling Ardelve. No web sources and very little solid info in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at Ardelve out of curiosity: wondered whether the "public school" was UK or US terminology (ie expensive and private or state-funded), and realised that the source for existence of school and PO is a facsimile reprint of an 1882 directory. Treat with caution! Have updated text and ref to reflect this. The nearest Post Office is now at Dornie. I've expanded the article a bit. PamD (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is what I mean the only sources I can find out out of date. It also mentioned a ferry crossing !!! at end of the road -!! it is now a bridge!!! I have a book on British villages but there are only selected ones. I wish I had a detailed book on "Villages of the Highlands" or something. Some of the Highland villages are tiny though, bareely more than a few buildings. In fact a lot of the larger "towns" in the Highlands are smaller than many villages in the south, I wish I had access to at least some info like I did for Ambrosden. If that level of info was available online for most Highlands villages... Our best bet maybe is Inverness Library. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful, nonetheless, to have a short article/stub on each place. Someone somewhere is going to discover that their great-great-granny came from Ardelve and will want to find out about it - where it is, what it's like today, are there links to any other sources of info. Perhaps you need to relax, and let the articles develop organically. If you haven't got the sources for these, then find a new sphere of article creation where you've got a good set of sources! These village stubs are not harming the encyclopedia. I admit I was surprised that neither Vision of Britain nor Genuki seemed to know anything about Ardelve: I wonder whether the place was known by another name previously? PamD (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends. When a Hamlet can reasonably be thought of as part of another village, merging is a good idea to create an environment in which the content can prosper. People look for A or B and find a half-decent stub about A and B instead of a quarter-decent stub only on A or only on B. That makes our readers happier and stimulates them more to actually help. If the articles really grow we can split them. An example is Farnley, West Yorkshire, which I created by merging two separate articles on Old Farnley and New Farnley. I think the relation is much clearer now. Hans Adler 16:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is a major difference between an unreferenced half liner which says xxxx is a village in the Highlands, Scotland and the current articlr for Ardelve, which, however short at least contains some info and some sources. Maybe the best thing then is to ensure none of them are unsourced and at least have some info and a picture if possible. That makes a major difference. Could somebbody point me to an online source for population data for these villages? As for book sources the sort of thing I'd need is this. At least some of them can be expanded like Aberchalder. I guess I'll have to be entrusted with the arduous task of sourcing /improving them so at least they contain something useful. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a comment above about old sources. Given the co-existence of Google Books with the very long present copyright terms, it will inevitably be the case that for most Wikipedians the main sources of information will be historical, for this and many other topics. This is very unfortunate, and, in my opinion as a librarian, can only be solved by people resuming the older practice of visiting physical libraries to do their research. The countries of past British emigration will generally have fairly extensive material local history available for the UK in larger libraries including genealogy within their scope, but for many other areas this will limit research to the country involved. Fortunately, there is no country where there are not people contributing to Wikipedia, even the English Wikipedia--we are thus better positioned to provide this information generally than anyone else. This gives us a special responsibility to facilitate this.

I see no harm in starting with a mere list. But if it has already been expanded into articles, then regardless of the possibly small extent of content in these articles, I cannot see the benefit of reducing them back to a list. It makes much more sense to devote the effort to expanding articles or writing missing ones. Tinkering with arrangement is unproductive as compared with writing. The one thing we can say for certain is that the articles will grow over time. I look at our 3+ million articles, and see them as a remarkable, astounding development for a mere ten years, and good predictive evidence that it will continue. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Skinsmoke/Sandbox/Civil parishes/Kernow. Very useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Thank you for your suggestion, but I have no idea what it means. You said "When you remove a prod due to the perfectly good reason 'plenty of hits from internet searching', please add two or three of the best of them. You've got them right there--its very easy to do." It seems to be in response to something I did while not signed in and therefore as user 67.100.126.246. Wakablogger2 (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's live...

You've given me grist for my mill. I'll be doing some tweaking to WP:IMPROVEIT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note

Hi DGG, thanks for your note, it made me remember this story:

The Buddha listened patiently while the stranger vented his rage, and then the Buddha said to the group and to the stranger, "If someone gives a gift to another person, who then chooses to decline it, tell me, who would then own the gift? The giver, or the person who refuses to accept the gift?" "The giver," said the group after a little thought. "Any fool can see that," added the angry stranger. "Then it follows, does it not," said the Buddha, "Whenever a person tries to abuse us, or to unload their anger on us, we can each choose to decline or to accept the abuse; whether to make it ours or not. By our personal response to the abuse from another, we can choose who owns and keeps the bad feelings."_{[www.squidoo.com/motivationalstories (unreliable and blacklisted source)]}

It's not always easy to follow and I definitely don't always manage, but it's certainly a good thing to try and aim for. Your note has certainly made it easier for me to this now, and reminded me that there are more important things to get on with. SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Col Warden

Please see my contribution to the discussion at ANI. At this point the Col has accepted what they did was unhelpful and agreed not to do it again so the whole thing is moot but the pattern of deterioration in his behaviour is continuing. Sensible people who he trusts need to speak to him about breaking the pattern before he goes too far and gets banned. We have all seen it before but the blame isn't with me or other editors, it has to fall squarely on the Col and those who nod and wink at his disruption and enable further deterioration by telling him that his bad behaviour is OK. He clearly needs to either take a break or refocus his perspective. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This time it was unhelpful, but a trivial error. I doubt it would have been prosecuted so vigorously by the same people if it had been an editor with another tendency. (I do not doubt your own sincerity, and I fully understand & will assist in what you hope to accomplish by your post here.) My own view is that he is so extraordinarily helpful to the improvement of content that, while I will support him as strongly as I can, I will also urge him as strongly as I can to correct his course when it interferes with his true purposes--purposes which I fully share. I suggest, though, that the recent attacks on other content contributors may have led to a sense of frustration, and perhaps you can be of some reciprocal assistance there. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category: unrecognized accreditation organizations

Hello DGG -- I see (unsurprisingly) that you are a member of Wikiproject Universities -- not sure if you keep the project page on your watchlist, though. I wonder if you would be interested in having a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities#Attempt_to_delete_Category:Unrecognized_accreditation_associations. I don't know what your perspective will be -- perhaps you won't agree with my sense that there is a problem -- but I'd like to make sure this issue gets some attention. thanks, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it some. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premature AFD closure

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Violation_of_non-admin_closure, where the AFD was closed over 24 hours too early by a non-admin. (It is since resolved for that particular AFD itself, as it was endorsed by an admin.) However, can you please help me find where those multiple prior admin board threads are archived, that discussed consensus not to close AFDs over one full day in advance of the seven day discussion period? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AFDs_run_for_seven_days.2C_not_six_days. I listed three prior discussions from the archives, but I know there are more. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead end?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Expansion of Health Sector in Saudi Arabia. It's probably going to get deleted given the dynamics there, but I'd be curious to hear your opinion. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Clemons

DGG,

You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaz Clemons that he was notable as a NCAA champion. However, he ran in Div III, whilst Wikipedia:NSPORTS#College_athletes requires Div I champions, so I wonder if you might revisit your !vote? Many thanks, Bigger digger (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment there, & asked a question. (btw, I do not consider this canvassing. Nobody who asks me for an opinion ought be at all sure what I will say).

Talking about more than this particular article, I have observed that the community accepts wider guidelines that the ones presently in WP:SPORTS. This is not unusual. Talking very generally, it seems that often the wikiproject in a field is a little more restrictive than the general view. I think usually a project is looking at it from its own internal standards, not that of the rest of the world; they may well be right, but the encyclopedia is supposed to represent the interests of the world in general. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I wouldn't call it canvassing to ask a !voter to consider their stance in the light of some more information, clearly it's a label too easily applied by some. I would hook onto your last sentence, "the interests of the world in general", which would be reflected in sources, and I just haven't been able to find these for him. I would rather keep things, but I have no problem deleting things that don't have WP:RS and don't meet the specific wikiproject guidelines, which I think is the case here. Best, Bigger digger (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Masters of Media

Hello DGG. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Masters of Media, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: since the founder is notable, I think this should be discussed at WP:AFD if deletion is desired. Thank you. So Why 21:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; this is why I normally tag CSDs rather than delete them single-handed. Two sets of eyes are better. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Wirasinha

You may remember this article which was deleted at AfD in June. A new, fuller version has been prepared and, being asked for advice, I have decided that the best thing to do is to post it and relist at AfD for the community's opinion. I am notifying everyone who was involved before: your views are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha (2nd nomination). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a try. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maha Spandana Method

DGG, you have quickly deleted and apparently determined my article on MSM as being a G11 ploy to advertise. Curious. Why, specifically, has my seed article of this new practice been so flippantly adjudicated as being invalid and profit seeking? Which did you decide that I might be advertising for, Dr. Gerber, Brother Bare, or ...Amazon.com? (I am at a bit of a loss) Dr. Gerber has been publishing his text since 1988 and Brother Bare has nothing for sale on his website... right now he dosen't even have any sessions listed. Seriously, what do you think is being sold via this supposed advertising ploy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedemusic (talk • contribs) 22:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"advertising or promotion"is not limited to commercial advertising, and it applies equally to enthusiasts as proprietors. The articles is promotion or advertising for BB's therapeutic and training sessions as well as his "spiritual advising services, energy work, and recorded music (featuring ambient, theraputic, and entertainment formatted albums)." to quote his web page. It would equally promotional if he were giving away all of this for free--as he does in fact seem to do for some of his MP3s. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kids for World Health.
Message added 22:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I felt a Funeral in my Brain

The same question as at User talk:Moonriddengirl#I felt a Funeral in my Brain. I ask just in case you or your lurkers have LRC access. Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in this discussion

You were involved in the old AfD for this article and I request that you leave a comment and your opinion on the question I have raised on the talk page. Thank you for your time. Silver seren^C 22:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD process

Hello DGG, I see you've closed this AfD [14] despite the fact that 7 days have not passed. Can you tell me why? The process recommends the AfD remain open for the full 7 days. [15]. Allowing the full 7 days leaves the discussion open to other editors who may have seen it but were believing they still had time to comment.Malke 2010 (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW, as I said at the close. No other conclusion was possible. I would also have been prepared to close it on the basis of being a disruptive and possibly even a bad faith nomination, but i try to not say such things if I can help them. As you probably know, I have not the least interest in the subject itself one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 10:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG, as regards your comments above, if you take a moment to WP:AGF you might well see that my arguments were good ones and that I presented evidence that clearly showed the article is a coat rack. Unfortunately, closing the AfD after such a short time means that others who might have supported the deletion are now prevented from commenting. Given that you admit not having an interest in the topic, it might have been better if you'd given this one the chance to go forward for it to accumulate more comments. This would have allowed an uninvolved administrator to be in a better position to make an informed decision based on all the comments that most likely would have accumulated over the normal course of 7 days. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin here. I have recently disagreed with DGG over a fair number of things, and I am interested in the topic of art, so I suppose I qualify as a completely distinct admin party to comment here. The close of this AfD as a Snow keep was completely correct, and it's a topic that is undeniably a good subject for an article. I would support a move to simply Marian art or Depictions of Mary in art or so, losing the pure focus on the Catholic Church, but that was not the subject of the AfD. Fram (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram, it would be a topic for an article if it wasn't a coat rack for veneration. A close reading of the article shows that it isn't concerned with the art as much as it is concerned with hanging veneration onto the art. Agree also with a move to Depictions of Mary in art as that would be more accurate than even Marian Art which might still infuse the veneration bit. If the AfD were still open, that could be suggested. And this is my point about the closing. There are editors there in active disagreement. Allowing it to remain for the full seven days might well bring more editors. Please consider relisting so that at least time can be given to others.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially as the AfD was listed Friday night and many editors take off for the weekend. Closing it out before the start of the week doesn't seem like it was given much of a chance to succeed. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is a little ironic. As Fram says, the two of us disagree on a number of things, some of them on a continuing basis. We are neither of us reticent in taking strong positions when we personally consider them indicated, but do not of course disagree on everything . One of the things we agree on is that AfDs should normally run 7 full days, and we have in the past week or so been strongly advocating this against some considerable opposition, though I think our view is currently endorsed by consensus . Yet both of us feel that this early close was appropriate. You should take it as an indication that you might be wrong. If you think the material one-sided, add to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, of course, but we'll never really know for sure since it's been closed. Thanks for the comments. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI section that may require access to academic journals

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A bit of a POV pushing problem. Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and User:WhatamIdoing told me that someone inserting misleading citations is not actionable at ANI, so I leave the article in your good hands. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As always, when people ask for my view, they should not assume what it is. The reason I am asked is presumably that I try to give an independent judgement on the particular issue, looking at it afresh even when I have commented previously. Unfortunately, although I think your editing on this topic has been generally among the fairest of the many who have tried, your casting of my response as my supporting misleading quotations is the sort of implication that has characterized much of the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, c'mon, you know I've never written anything like that about you. I just have less patience in dealing with a certain type of editors than you do. But you have less patience with other types :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply to e-mail: articles copied off PD sources

The articles I've checked have been largely been those copied off the Dictionary of National Biography, checked against the modern equivalent, the Oxford DNB, and histories of aspects of Victorian England. The errors such as those of omission I have found have not been significant, and similar one could occur if the articles were based on modern sources; I don't take notes on what I do on Wikipedia.

(It was quite unnecessary to e-mail—I got to your message a while after I would have on my talk page, and I see no reason to discuss this in e-mail with a user I don't know in real life or closely collaborate with.)

—innotata 16:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are doing a careful job on them, because it wasn't clear -- or at least, clear to me-- from what you had previously said at the Signpost. I've commented on this and other sourcing problems pretty frequently; as you can see above, it's the sort of thing people ask me about. I agree that the overall tone of the DNB articles is considerably more acceptable than the overall tone of the old CE and the 11th EB, & the quality of its research considerably higher than the 11th EB. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Roman Re-directs and DABs

Ever since you were involved in the preliminary discussion on Non-Roman characters in article titles, there has been a separate proposal regarding the usage of Non-Roman characters in re-directs and DABs, and you may be interested in joining the discussions on this page. Your input will be appreciated. --HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 23:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Authority Control

Not quite as bad as feeling a funeral in my brain, but all the same I was a bit startled to read at the foot of the (terrible) article Andrej Krementschouk Authority control: PND: 139292489 | LCCN: nr89012204 | VIAF: 100577411. I'd never heard of PND, LCCN or VIAF; and "Authority Control" sounded like a new name for your beloved TSA. Among these, the LCCN is clearly about somebody related but entirely different. Perhaps I should fix it. Or should I just scrap the whole thing? Does the "authority control" benefit anyone other than librarians, and does it even benefit them? Should every bio of somebody who's got a book out have an "authority control" at its foot? I'm thoroughly confused, and would prefer to leave all of this to somebody who has a doctorate in a related matter. -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Authority" can be in the US a neutral word: see, for example Tennessee Valley Authority.

As I think you know, "Authority control" is the library name for defined metadata, the official form of personal and organizational names, titles, and subject heading. PND is Personennamendatei the German equivalent of the LCCN from the Library of Congress; and VND is Virtual International Authority File, a link between them and other systems; the numbers are the code numbers in the different systems. It's the library practice to include in the full cataloging record all such numbers available, in order to provide compatibility as systems develop--and to provide redundancy to permit correction of errors.

We at enWikipedia have of course our own system, Wikipedia:Persondata, but it's a very primitive system, and apparently nobody has thought to include linking data to other systems. The article in question was copied from the German Wikipedia, and the help page for their version of this is [16] They have also developed a more elaborate system that links to the standard file numbers used outside Wikipedia: [17] I do not know if we intend to use it here or not, but in my opinion we certainly ought to--it should be a central multilingual file for all Wikipedias. As an example, their personal name authority control in the new system for this person in the deWP is at [18]. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i dunno why Hoary's making fun of Deutsche wikipedia formats, we have the issn number for books, which with a world cat can find the nearest library with the book. the english library equivalent, LOC [19] we could migrate person data to include? Accotink2 talk 03:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmm it times out, no permanent link Accotink2 talk 04:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress indicates that permanent links to their authority records don't work at this time. See this info page, item 6. At the bottom of the Andrej Krementschouk article, the middle identifier (the one labelled 'LCCN') is actually pointing to a copy of an authority record on the web site of oclc.org, and the entry is for the wrong person! (Hoary noticed this). The link which is there now is http://errol.oclc.org/laf/nr89012204.html, which is an authority record for Sibylle Bergemann, not Krementschouk. (The link is also wrong in the corresponding German Wikipedia article). I would fix this but I don't know how http://errol.oclc.org is set up, so I don't know how to find the right link for Andrej Krementschouk. I found this page for Krementschouk under worldcat.org/identities but it's a completely different style of page than the one at errol.oclc.org. This tragic flaw in our Krementschouk article will remain unless DGG can save us, or unless Hoary decides to delete the whole thing from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

":the search link [20] should work as a link. The WorldCat identities file is not an authorities file, it is merely a local construction from the author name in the records--In my experience, I have found it subject to error for common names. LC authorities is constructed by humans, and the source of the information is given. The link to the OCLC copy of the LC authorities record in the VIAF combined index is http://errol.oclc.org/laf/no2010037235.html, which gives the correct record.

Authorities work, as it is called , is in the US an inner sanctum of specialists. The page about the program as a whole is at [21]; the most recent lonk I know on the status of a true international system , is [22]. DGG ( talk ) 10:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Further work on this will need to be done by the German PND project DGG ( talk ) 10:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i dunno why Hoary's making fun of Deutsche wikipedia formats -- I hadn't realized that I had been making fun of these or anything else, except possibly Emily Dickinson (who's fair bait as she has an army of defenders) or the TSA (no further comment). ¶ The meaning of the content of DNB is easy to figure out. As EdJohnston too has pointed out, the Errol OCLC entry is for the wrong person; but that aside it's not clear to me what it's the record of -- Sibylle Bergemann, or some publication by her titled Explosion of a Memory? Is it helpfully pointing out that de:WP has an article on her/it, or is it instead citing de:WP as (horrors!) the source for its information? Why is it called LCCN? The VIAF entry is minimal; is it valuable? ¶ I had wondered whether anyone other than a librarian would find any of these useful, or (and this was the main question for DGG) whether a real-life librarian would. I'm glad I asked, as it hadn't occurred to me that a robot might find them useful. And the question still seems a reasonable one to me, as I'd seen a lot of en:WP articles but hadn't previously noticed such material in any of them. -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, that authority search link times out after a few minutes and can't generally be used by anyone but the original searcher. ~~'LCCN' seems like the wrong tag to use in the footer. Maybe 'LC authority record', or an abbreviation for that if it exists.~~ Hoary has noticed that the LC is now referring to Wikipedia in some of its authority records (see the last line of the record). Note that the authority record for Krementshouk is referring to his personal website. It seems that the LC catalogers will take information wherever they can find it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that 'LCCN' is the right way to abbreviate a reference to an authority record, so I struck part of my above comment. This topic is continued at Talk:Andrej Krementschouk. DGG, thanks for hosting this valuable discussion, but it's time to archive your talk page :-). I can set up MiszaBot for you. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great holiday, but...

... remember where pumkin pies really come from. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you, but it will not be easy to disregard some of the discussions this week. What I am thankful for, is a few days before I will need to comment at the RfC. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redactions at that BLP

Good call. I've taken the liberty of making the redactions. A couple comments. First, I deserve a WP:TROUT for having missed the specifics of that content dispute when I declined the PROD. (Thwacks self). I may have gone a little farther than you would have in that I redacted three of the edit summaries too, feel free to correct or temper my modifications, but my analysis was (1) the material was a BLP problem and (2) that the material did not go toward establishing notability for the person. Seems like a good call on your part. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to participate

User:Wuhwuzdat has made a very WP:Pointy deletion nomination of List of management consulting firms after two of his wholesale deletions of article content were reverted and explained here. Since you participated in the 1st AfD, I am notifying you of the 2nd AfD in the event you wish to participate. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

will you take a look at this?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the burrito looks a like a doomed discussion, though, IMHO, the article has all that's needed for a keep and has enormous potentials. I'm perfectly willing to improve the article as much I can. I hate too see good stuff getting deleted. :-( Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it should not be deleted, but it should be merged. The main article needs some of this information, and not only in the history section. Even if it could be shown that each of the restaurants and so on was significant--but I can not tell which were included because references were found, as distinct from being well-known or otherwise significant-- there is still no reason to write it as a timeline, or as a separate article. The best way to expand this material is to see whether there were material to write a justifiable article on more individual taquerias. What also might be nice if there is more than scattered data is an illustration showing the geographical spread at different periods; I can also see a list of types with dates of first mention included--but neither of them would be a separate article. My own feeling, is that if I want to read an article on the subject, I'd rather read it as a single article. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biography of another academic

Arnold Reisman (AfD discussion)

You opined on this one the second time around. There's been more said on the subject of the books since. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not an academic, not a biography even

Jean-Philippe de Bourbon-Navarre (AfD discussion)

If you or your lurkers are tired of biographies of academics, on the other hand, then try this person, who is not only not a living person, but not even a person for whom there is primary source historical evidence of existence. Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please allow me to revise article

Article "Karren Dunkley" was deleted on 24th of November 2010 under provision -A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. I have only drafted the article and did not have a fair chance to include a substantial amount of information before the deletion. The article was deleted after 1-2 days of being created. Could you please restore it and allow me to update and revise the article. I will acquiesce to your decision if you still believe the article to be in violation of A7 after it finalized draft.

I restored it, & placed a tag giving you a few days to work on it. I think I was probably over-hasty to use a speedy, but it remains doubtful that the article will actually pass our standards. The decision will be made not by me, but by the community, at our WP:AFD process. I left you some advice on the talk p. of the article, and your talk p. I remind you of WP:COI. If you are editing on her behalf, or for for an organization with which she is connected, you should say so on your user talk page, but you need not actually identify yourself. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am editing the article for an organization she is connected with. I will work to revise the article.

Question

Hello. I am aware I am a very unpopular and disliked editor so I am sorry to address you, but I simply wish to be educated in not wanting to be blocked forever. Thank you by the way for your comments at the last ANB over my fate. My question is, I am again being threatened by editors that I will be banned because I am editing contributions of individuals who disagreed with me regarding an article that was deleted. I am no longer being sarcastic, agressive, uncivil, or anything negative. Nor have I tagged anything yet or nominated AfD. I simply inquire on relevant talk pages pursuant to policies. Am I to understand that any of those numerous editors who disagreed with me now have some sort of immunity, and I am not allowed to scrutinize their contributions? That hardly seems fair. It also seems that because I once disagreed with those editors I am not allowed to make a mistake in my assessment of the notability of their contribution (notable to some may not be to all, no matter the sources). Please do advise if you so desire or find a minute. Thanks either way.Turqoise 127 23:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nobody need stay unpopular and disliked--if you do things better, people will revise their judgment. What I suggest you might improve is your degree of persistence in a debate. Make your comment, reply to objections, and then stop. I admit I do not always follow this rule myself, but usually two tries at expressing one's views on a given matter at a particular time is sufficient. Limiting yourself this way will also help you avoid getting personal, which is what people have been mainly complaining about. And regard the keeping or deleting of a single article as just the fate of that particular article, not a matter to get too involved about, considering we have millions of articles to improve and millions more to write. Nobody can expect their view to prevail every time -- at least, I certainly don't, and if I made an issue of it every time, I know what people would think of me. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]