User talk:DGG/Archive 47 Dec. 2010

center>ARCHIVES

Reminders

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

Thanks for the cleanup

Thanks for the cleanup at User:Meyersa/Finger Lakes Institute; I should have done that myself, but it was my first userfication, and didn't think clearly.--SPhilbrickT 19:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

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

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not an academic, not a biography, not even personal

• Internet search engines and libraries (AfD discussion)

Here's another AFD discussion that might interest you. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

yes indeed--this is an article done by a school class, apparently with inadequate support from Wikipedians. The tone is a little wrong, but it's not awful, and deletion is not the answer. Better outreach is the answer. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jazz in year 19xx Articles

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1915 in jazz. You may want to comment. The immediate outcome seems fairly clear "keep, consider merging". The question to me is how to move forward into a meaningful way of structuring list-type articles that assist in navigation. I see a risk of creating huge, unstructured lists with arbitrary contents. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

this is an attack on a well established type of article, for reasons I do not understand , by a frequent AfD nominator who has in my opinion frequently made such ill-considered nominations, and is not likely to be surprised at my expressing this attitude about. There is sufficient content for each year for it to stand on its own. There is no need for restructuring. I will comment there accordingly, without the personal comment, which would not belong at an AfD discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The nomination was a bit daft, but that does not really concern me. I am sure there is plenty of content for each year. My concern is that there may be far too much. If I wanted to waste a few hours, I could pick a given year, search for all articles that had content on jazz relevant to that year (album release, concert, birth, death etc.) then put in massive lists of, e.g. all jazz albums released that year that have Wikipedia articles. I am looking for a process to work out some guidelines that will keep the articles down to a reasonable size and make sure they are useful. But perhaps there is no need - just see how they evolve. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I had not thought of that objection. But such analysis would also apply to any general article. If there is too much material for a Jazz in 1915 article, there is an overwhelmingly greater amount of material for an article on Jazz. Writing a Wikipedia article is not a mechanical process--we need be selective. And think of articles like 1915--even more selectivity is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I may actually try it for one year, see what shows up. Personally, I think lists are useful, can be interesting in themselves, and certainly encourage browsing. But there has to be some sort of size limit and organization. Selectivity is tough - I may think Coleman Hawkins is more important than Duke Ellington, others will strongly disagree. A minor, little-noticed album in one year may be followed by a huge success later. The first album was way ahead of public taste, but turned out to be immensely important. I dunno. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've written 1924 in jazz. I'm sure the other years can follow suite and indeed the missing years by written in the same way.... I honestly don't think we ar ein danger of having too huge lists. As DGG says we should be selective and only stick to what is most notable. In regards to Coleman Hawkins and Duke Ellington I would say that Hawkins was a more important musician and Ellington a more notable composer perhaps..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've also begun starting missing articles like 1920 in jazz and 1922 in jazz. Any idea why Ten Pound Hammer is completely unwilling to discuss his actions?..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

no idea of motive, but his AfD nominations have long been a curious mix of the appropriate and the absurd. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

One these days, I am going to nominate an article for deletion. First I have to find one with no potential at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

W.C.Hewitt

I was hoping since you've flagged my article for construction (thank you for that by the way) you could tell me what I need to fix for the admins to leave it alone? Most of the information is from W.C. Hewitt. Should I add that to my reference list seeing as I cannot add his publishing company's links anywhere without your colleagues directing my article to the speedy deletion box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andthewheelspins (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

look atthe article talk page in an hour or so, I haven't gotten to this yet. DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a look over. Just wanted to point out some responses to your response. The books are not avaliable until Dec 1, and so I cannot give the links the publisher has for Barnes and Knobles or Amazon. Secondly, the assignment was not to write about an author, but about someone/thing that didn't have a wiki yet that would be contributing to the online community. If I had known that I was going to be flagged so quickly for my hard work, I would have gone a simpler route and never even looked at your website at all, given the option. Finally, in my own defense, I put in the work to make it look good and sound intelligent...so I think you all need to have a look at articles such as ones I found that give one reference and an incorrect line of text. I find them all the time while doing research. I'm not firing back at you and I appreciate what must be done, but I find this to be radically wrong in comparison. Andthewheelspins (talk • contribs)

Yes, you made it sound intelligent, but, unfortunately, he is not notable enough to have an article yet. B&N and Amazon will distribute anything, and being listed there is not notability. A valid contribution is something about an author we have not yet covered who has published books that are already recognized as important by reviews in 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 ) 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about creating a new article

I was trying to find some information about that pointy s thing kids always seem to be drawing and I wasn't even sure what to call it in my search. Generally it seems to be called Super S, Pointy S, Stussy S... (if you don't know what I'm talking about, a couple pictures come up for each of them in google images, but most results are a miss). I couldn't find any info with any of these names on wikipedia, though. I was wondering if something like that would garner its own page, or a section on a page, or something...?

I might just be way off on the name, too, so I'm really not sure what course of action to take, here. Any guidance would be appreciated, even if to redirect me to a better spot to ask this kind of thing. I find the community portal very disorienting. Aryst0krat (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for removal of COI tag on Dr Angus Reid

Hi DGG - since you're an expert and I'm totally new to Wikipedia, I'm looking for your guidance. I've been in an ongoing brawl with another user about two pages I created Dr Angus Reid and Vision Critical. He used my admitted COI against me, even though that is not "allowed" WP:CONFLICT see paragraph 3.

I would like to have the COI tag removed from the Dr Angus Reid page as the discussion makes the COI clear and the page has been edited for neutrality by several users. Please advise as I think I've followed the rules here and should be free from WuhWuzDat's ongoing bullying. I would also like to post a page on Angus Reid's son, Andrew, but I'm afraid that this user will come after me again. Is it true he can have my article deleted immediately just because he doesn't like it?

Thanks for your patient help with a newbie who should probably not give up her day job in favour of becoming a full-time Wikipedian. :) Kirstinhepburn (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've interfered to the extent of moving (renaming) the page, as we don't use titles like "Dr" in article titles - have moved it to Angus Reid (market research). The incoming links to Angus Reid need looking at, as not all are intended for the football player. The dab page had 3 entries, not including Dr A R, but the two organisations were the same (redirect from one to other): the dab page is hardly necessary, as I've added a more detailed hatnote to the footballer's page. But possibly he isn't the primary usage and there should be a dab page at the base name, for footballer, CEO, and company? PamD (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

PamD, thanks for the move. The disam seems ok for now. Kristinhepburn, this and the related pages needs some further attention, and will get it. There is sufficient COI that you should write the article in your user space, at User:Kirstinhepburn/Arthur Reid, which I have just started for you. Then ask me or someone else to take a look and move it to mainspace when it is ready. It is very hard even for one experience in public relations to write an article with the appropriately neutral tone, which is the point of our COI rules. You would do well to think of Wikipedia as a hobby, and perhaps write or improve some articles for significant Canadian people or institutions with whom your company is not connected--articles on defunct firms of earlier historical importance are badly needed, as are articles on businesspeople of an earlier generation. Pick those for whom there are good biographical sources, such as Dictionary of Canadian Biography. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question on Epeefleche

Hi DGG. I know you disagree with Epee block. May I please ask you what is the reason you will not unblock them yourself? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Because his alleged canvassing of me is part of the charges against him that led to the block. I consider the charge ill-founded, but that makes me far too involved. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question about citing sources

Hi! I have a quick question about citing sources. I cited the same five journal article multiple times in my wikipedia article, and when I look down at my references section the journal is listed each time I cited it. I used a total of five journal articles, but I have sixteen citations of those same five journal articles on my reference list. Is there any way I can consolidate these citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdonny16 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, there's a way; see WP:REFNAME. It's not as clumsy as it looks. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Another journal listed at AFD

• Journal of Logic and Analysis (AfD discussion)

Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking me

RE: December 2010

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Creating pages devoted to defaming a person or organization. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the first warning I ever got ! Composemi (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

you are correct, I should have used the notice that says "this is your only warning". But the actual question is whether I should have blocked you immediately. First of all, blatant defamation (listing the product in the infobox as "fraud", for example), with the material sourced only to blog postings, is so serious that one warning is sufficient or more than sufficient. Second, it appears obvious that the articles about the same school have been edited in the same manner with exactly the same words under several other names,such as Amal.perera66,and Ishantha, an offense which we call Sock puppetry, for which people are usually blocked immediately. Third, you have actually been warned several times, for inserting copyrighted illustrations into Wikipedia. I do not rule out the possibility of a neutral article about the trade school, that can include even such strong criticism if adequate sources can be found for it--but someone other than you should write it. (I cannot, for whatever sources there might be would seem to be in Singalese, a language I cannot work with.) DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey there

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wolfstorm000's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sculptures of History and Art (Doyle)

Hi DGG,

Thanks for looking into those articles. They were created as part of my IUPUI class project at the Indiana Statehouse. Both Sculpture of History (Doyle) and Sculpture of Art (Doyle) should be deleted. The content contained within is now combined with the other 6 artworks which is in the Values of Civilization (Doyle) article. I would delete/merge the History & Art articles if I knew how. There doesn't seem to be the need for much, if any, discussion. Any suggestions for help? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

our postings crossed , see User talk:Mkadams888. I just wanted to make sure I understood the intent properly before I deleted them. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Gracias! I think we're all clear now.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

DGG- Thank you very much! I wasn't sure that I had used the correct template, but I think the problem has been resolved. Mkadams888 (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

db-author request

I did create the article {Jewish Community in Franklin Square and West Hempstead} -- check out http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Factothy&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects

I don't know why you warned me that I can't edit from multiple accounts; I did in fact make it with this user account. I did change my username a while back; maybe that's the confusion?

Either way, I made all the content that's up there, why are you giving me such a hard time about deleting it? It has no cited sources, and is of no significance. I will do a real request for deletion, but I was told not to do that unless it was absolutely necessary because it's resource intensive. Is that not true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factothy (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it has promise & it is my job as admin to not delete articles, if they can be improved. I'm looking for a good merge--Nassau County is too large. I consider the eruv map evidence for the existence of the area. What is resource intensive and unconstructive is trying to delete articles rather than improving them--it wastes all the resources that have previously been used. You have the right to proceed to AfD, but it is usual to respect an underconstruction tag from a good faith editor. and, btw, please sign your comments. Do this by entiring 4 consecutive tilde characters, like this: ~~~~ DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi DGG: Possible typo in the above - presumably "to to" should be "not to"? PamD (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC) fixed, thanks. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Navea

When an article contains sentences such as "Navea, a multi-awarded professional and civic leader, was the 2010 congressional nominee for DAMAYAN PARTYLIST (www.damayan.net). For details, visit websites www.consumersaward.com and worldexcellenceawards.com and www.varietynewsmagazine.com Mobile No. 0906-4884787 or 0922-2316044." would you mind not only noting their need for removal but also doing it? Ironholds (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

And now Go Country NY. Could you not merge it, as well as add the merge tag? It's a tiny article. Personally, I think the removal of the speedy tag and the addition of the merge tag was silly, because none of the article's information is based on reliable, third-party sources and thus worthy of transfer, but since we disagree here perhaps you could do the entire job? Ironholds (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Saved a copy of the Attny General Vote Table for you at....

User:Javaweb/VoteTable You can use edit, copy and paste it into User:DGG:someplace to preserve it, if you wish. Please tell me when you are finished with it. I will delete my copy in 5 days. First, thank you for your interest in the attorney general article. My feeling is the table was "scaffolding" needed while the election was decided so folks could see the tally trend. However, I purposely divorced it from the article so it could be deleted after the election was over but wanted to leave it to a consensus rather than delete it myself. Shorter articles are better than long ones and information that may have been fascinating before now becomes mere data clutter. --Javaweb (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

now that I have figured out what is intended, see Talk:California Attorney General election, 2010 for the way I did it correctly. I apologize for my slowness at figuring this out. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waipoua Forest Trust

This seems borderline. Comment? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, the suggested merge seems the way to handle this. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

O.k. - I will go along with that. The organization itself does not really seem notable, but the material is probably worth preserving. If the organization does for some reason become notable, it can always be moved out into a separate article again. I dislike deleting titles, but am much less concerned about where the content is put. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

hey

Didnt know if you had seen this one yet Jewish Times of South Jersey Have fun! Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

2006 Kenyan elections

Hi. There is an interview of Julian Assange on youtube at a forum in which he discusses the leaking of documents related to Daniel arap Moi and Mwai Kibaki which exposes corruption etc. Assange claims that they directly influenced the elections by publishing the documents in newspapers in neighboring countries to Kenya in the run up to the elections and influenced a 10% swing in the votes. This is a huge claim and I think the wikileaks influence should be mentioned in all articles. Can you research thi and verify it and perhaps mention it in the articles if it is true?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

sorry, not my field, really, & I would suggest there are quite enough people here working on wikileaks related topics already. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Biography of an another living academic

• Oren Ben-Dor (AfD discussion)

I tried to keep you clear of the "in popular culture" article that's come up, but found myself pointing you towards another biography of an academic as a substitute. Of course, you could always marvel at the poor mathematics in Lines of equal latitude and longitude (AfD discussion) instead, if you like. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodburn, Midlothian

Can you comment or just make the move requested at Talk:Woodburn, Midlothian, Scotland ? You deleted this article in the past, but 'tis a valid topic. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

done. The earlier stuff was mere nonsense. This is OK as a start, but needs expansion DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112

Could you please revisit Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/working/Summary of Evidence memos/pg112. I believe that your opinion their was based on an incorrect impression you may have gotten from an earlier post by another editor, and is not actually reflecting anything Geo Swan said or indicated. I would appreciate it if you looked at the full discussion and arguments again, and check whether your opinion actaully reflects the facts in this case. Fram (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Geo will do what is appropriate without the need for such actions such as are being taken at MfD. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that he created in June 2010 still pages that weren't up to our standards in mainspace (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majid bin Hamed bin Abdullah al-Haseri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahd Saleh Al-Muhayani are two examples), I don't see why you have such faith that he will take any action about four year old incorrect negative BLP-related pages in his userspace. But I guess only time will tell... Fram (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly he has so many items in progress that he may need reminding. (What he might really need is help in trying to write them; myself, I regret that I'm too involved in other things.) In the 2 instances you mention, he himself withdrew the articles, which seems like the right course of action. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

While it of course was better than opposing the deletion, the fact remains that he still creates such articles. Were these from 2006 or so, I wouldn't have such a problem with it, we all learn, but he should now by now, and after so many years in such a contentious area with BLPs, what is and what isn't acceptable in the mainspace. 07:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Notify author/project: on Prod

FYI- Template_talk:Proposed_deletion#Notify_author:, Jeepday (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

At the opposite end of the margins of notability....

Now here is a quandary you might be interested as a librarian, on inducing editors to write about core topics. Trying to find ungameable notable categories for core material and how we rate them - essentally in the wikicup (a fun competition which rewards production of audited content) how can we induce folks to write about core encyclopedic material (if there is such a thing) Hence I am pondering somecarrots for next years' competition. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

there is a relevant page on another project: [1]. This was an attempt to get a list of essential articles that must be done at the start, and has gotten a little more intricate, as things do at that project; some other problems will be evident from inspecting the list. It was a very good idea, , but it was not followed through, because of the lack of sufficient people to actually write the articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the lack of people on that site was pretty global. Nevertheless, there'd be a similar problem here if we try and force folks to write about things other than what they are interested in. I got the idea as the wikicup is a nice circumscribed and now quite popular event that folks are enjoying participating in - thus it does not require startup from scratch. Anyway, I then was musing on how on could make rock solid categories that couldn't be gamed. Quite fun really :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

Hi! I have started a discussion about the local interest clause in WP:ORG. You opposed this clause when it was originally inserted. (I am notifying everyone who participated in that original discussion, for or against.) Your input into the discussion would be appreciated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've raised a question as to whether it is permissible under the canvassing guideline for me to make a similar notification, of all editors who participated in a prior discussion on a same subject, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Commented at both places. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoted at ANI

Just letting you know that you were quoted at ANI here. un☯mi 12:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Keli Lane

Hi DGG. The article on Keli Lane was deleted on 1 September after an AfD discussion [2]. Lane has now been found guilty of her baby's murder and the article has reappeared. If you think it appropriate, could you please give me a copy of the deleted article so that parts of it may be reworked into the new article? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed you a copy of the wikitext, and also the way the page read. Please be careful about undue emphasis and I would not be surprised if it were renominated, so be prepared to deal with possible objection about BLP:Oneevent. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will wait for the dust to settle and see if the article survives deletion. Regards, WWGB (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This way of recreating a deleted article loses the history of the deleted contributions. I am concerned that, if the recreated article survives, there may need to be an undeletion followed by a histmerge. Otherwise our copyright enforcers might complain. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For a BLP I prefer to email content, especially when I am cautioning that all of it might not be usable. Since almost all of the original comments was contributed by WWGB, I don't think see how this is an actual problem. But if anyone really cares, an actual histmerge in a case as simple as this is trivial : delete everything; then restore everything. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

August 2009

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as on Talk:WebMoney, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.201.158 (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC) (this seems to be a warning notice that I forgot to sign a comment on a talk p. 16 months ago) DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Waupaca Electric Light and Railway Company =

I saw your comments at the deletion review for the article Waupaca Electric Light and Railway Company, and I left a comment there for you, just so know. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll get there. Too much for one day. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Biography of another living academic

• Elliot McGucken (AfD discussion)

You actually participated in the AFD discussion the first time around. Uncle G (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I !voted weak keep at the previous AfD; the junk has been cleared away, & it will be easier to make a firmer judgment now one way or another. I'll need to check citations, etc, since it's two years later. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive 57#Strange edit summaries by Golumbo makes for interesting, but not edifying, reading. Uncle G (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • related matters seem to be being discussed at ANI. It is inherent to the nature of Wikipedia that certain types of disruptive people will be strongly attracted here. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

=

Sultan Tarlacı

May I ask you to cast an eye over this? I declined an A7 speedy, and found a first reference to confirm that he did indeed found his journal, and a respectable return from Scholar. The journal has been going for 8 years, so must be doing something right, and together with the Scholar results looks enough for PROF, but I am uneasy because:

• There is evident COI - the first author is Neuroquantology (talk · contribs) (to whom I have suggested a change of username), and from comments on my talk page the second author Solty1970 (talk · contribs) is the man himself,
• All the papers listed as references are from his own journal, which I tend to discount, although the Scholar list has 37 from other publications to 11 from Neuroquantology,
• The book ISBNs don't check out (could the Turks have a different system?)

Their next contribution may well be an entry for the journal; how would we assess that?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• The "I" in International Standard Book Number stands for … erm …

  Check the various Turkish libraries in Project:Booksources, and you'll see that they don't have listings for those numbers, either.

  Why did you not check for the same thing happening as before? This is clearly a copy of this, which is ("© 2009 BILYAY Foundation. All rights reserved.") non-free. This is the same person repeating the same copyright violation, with yet another account. The previous copyright violation is in the deleted contributions of Sultan1970 (talk · contribs). The next copyright violation was by Neuron1970 (talk · contribs). Now you have Neuroquantology (talk · contribs) and Solty1970 (talk · contribs). The pattern is obvious. Clearly this is persistent addition of non-free content to Wikipedia with multiple accounts. The big "look at my biography on Wikipedia" to be seen here is clearly why this person is repeately doing this, moreover.

  Note that the "written by me" claim is unsupported, and we don't accept that without OTRS confirmation in any case. The copyright holder is clearly stated on the page concerned, and it is not the subject. At this point, I'm tempted to delete and prevent article re-creation until someone who is willing to not copy non-free-content (auto)biographies, and actually write a neutral and verifiable article in xyr own words, comes along. Clearly the aim of the person at hand is not aligned with the aim of Wikipedia, and does not have the intention of writing free content to donate to the world based upon independent and reliable sources; but rather has the aim of (repeatedly) copying non-free content to simply host an autobiography at no cost. Uncle G (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is an article for the journal, and it was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuroquantology. COI is certainly present, but it does not necessarily prevent a NPOV description of actual accomplishments. Editors of major journals unquestionably meet WP:PROF; although this is not at all a major journal, editorship of any journal notable by Wikipedia standards has often been considered as at least partial evidence of notability. He works in the intersection of two fields, an intersection where, in my opinion, a considerable percentage of the publications might be considered fringe. However, he has had papers on mainstream topics published in important journals, such as Brain. Scopus shows 26 papers, with top citations of 48, 43 , 30, and h=10. (Google Scholar counts are generally 2x higher) He is not the principal listed author for the ones with the higher citation counts, and such citation counts are not quite as impressive in a field of high citation density such as neurobiology. As for the books, Turkey does use the same ISBN system, but there is no union catalog. I too searched the main university catalogs both by ISBN and author name, which is fortunately distinctive, without finding the books. I presume the publications are medical and auxiliary textbooks, and it is not unusual for such not to be in major university libraries; especially outside the US, most such libraries traditionally avoid undergraduate textbooks. I wouldn't remove them from the article on the basis of what searching I can readily do., and I think he's borderline, but on the notable side. As for copyvio, such copyvio can easily be rewritten--there are, after all, not many different ways of listing the facts of an academic career. But, as Uncle G says, it is certainly usual here to deal with borderline articles that prove to be copyvio, as so many of them are--it always does need checking, by deleting them as copyvio, rather than rewriting, as I would do for someone of greater importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have redirected the Tarlacı article to the journal one, and told the author that he must either arrange a release or rewrite it, and because of his COI should then submit a draft to WP:AFC. JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A535 road

Hi. Something very related to our previous discussion about British library resources and villages has come up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A535 road about an A road up for AFD. You may find the discussion interesting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you have said every thing necessary, and said it very well. I have marked it for future reference, as will no doubt be needed in future AfDs, and in attempts to restore deleted or over-merged articles. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Deletion review for WIRIS

An editor has asked for a deletion review of WIRIS. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wirismath (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

already did DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Shoplifter

Hi, this user is creating a lot of good journal articles. Perhaps you can have a look at his contributions and, if appropriate, add autoreviewer rights? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

done. I'll tell him. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

More examples

Ten more examples of deceptive edit summaries from this year: [3] —Kww(talk) 15:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with you about these, and I have said so. Perhaps this can be a step in bringing down the level of drama. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions

I have a very urgent need for some questions to be answered. Please post your reply to my talk page ASAP.

Can a list be deleted (at MfD) based on the argument that all the pages it lists should be deleted (even though they haven't been deleted)?

That is, can a navigation aid to live pages in the encyclopedia be deleted without deleting the live pages first?

If the navigation aid was deleted, could it's discussion then be cited as the community's rejection of the pages it listed, and posed as the justification for their deletion? The Transhumanist 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Lists are articles, and are deleted at AfD. If it is decided that a group of articles on a subject should be deleted, is usual to delete the articles first, and then the related templates and categories. Often articles are merged into a list, and then of course the list is not deleted, but the categories often are. It does happen, that articles are deleted without covering the matter at all anywhere. As a general rule, an attempt to delete articles at the XfD processes except AfD is considered inappropriate, though it has been tried. But it's hard to talk abstractly--just which articles and lists are in question is the problem? DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

but perhaps you are referring to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlines. Whatever the decision there, it does not invalidate any or all pages with Outline in the title. as to what I think that decision should be, I've commented there. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Manzai Comics draft

I think I've just about finished The Manzai Comics draft you userified for me ages ago. As the deleting admins both have not edited at all for some months, would it be appropriate to DRV the draft, with notice to the wikiproject, to ask for permission to put the draft back into the mainspace? --Malkinann (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

first, I suggest that you break up the long "reception" paragraph and say who these people you are quoting are," the critic X said .... ", or just say "One critic" and put the names in the ref. Alternatively , or in addition, a section " major themes " would be appropriate--perhaps you can move some of the quotations there. second, I se the nominator, Farix, is still active--why not ask him first? If he says OK, I'll just move it back for you,as he was the principal person to object. If he does not, perhaps he will have some further suggestions; but if he does not help, then take it to DRV DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

He agrees that it passes WP:N and WP:BK. :) --Malkinann (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The MfD

I've replied to your suggestion that the page be made inactive, and provided a link to the discussion regarding the page's status (link placement) that took place in September. The Transhumanist 06:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Online Ambassador interest list

Hey DGG. I just wanted to give you a poke about applying to be an Online Ambassador, if you're still interested in doing that. It looks like we're going to have possibly upwards of 500 students that need mentors next term.

You can take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Modernism/Modernity

Hi, Crusio suggested I'd speak to you on this. This article should be moved to Modernism/modernity to reflect the actual name of the journal. It was already moved once because of an incorrect assumption. Also, if you could move Portal - Libraries and the Academy to its correct name portal: Libraries and the Academy, that would be great too. Thanks! Shoplifter (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

first change made; I tried to make the second using {{Template:lowercase title}}, but for some reason, it did not work in any of the variation I tried. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Reception of country music for deletion

The article Reception of country music is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_15#Reception_of_country_music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

As a previous contributor to the article in question, your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Seniortrend (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Denmark–Philippines_relations

I added some notes, post-closure, FYI. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

as I said there, it would have been better to wait the full 10 days. It almost always is, if only to avoid some of the basis for questioning a close. I've consistently said this, whether or not I agree with the close. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand

Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Automatic google book referencing

David, an idea occurred to me, I'm thinking of making a proposal. I don't know about you but I heavily use google books for writing my articles. The thing is I find that it takes me as long to copy the referencing details as it does to write content. What I'm thinking of is a tool built into the box when you edit an article in which you can paste the url or isbn number? of the book in google books and a bot will read the parameters in the google book listing e.g author, title, publisher. year, edition etc and it will create an inline reference which is fully sourced, saving you having to copy and draw up the references yourself. I don;t know about others but this would save me a massive amount of time and I could reference more articles this way.. E.g this. Scroll down to the bottom. The parameters under Bibliographic information could be copied by automation given that the format is consistent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

try using the link on the side of a google books display page, "find in a library". That usually gives you a link to worldcat.. If you are in worldcat there's link at the top: cite this book, offering you a choice of styles--pick any of them. You will then only have to add the ISBN manually. This will do at least part of what you want. DGG ( talk ) 14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) Try this nifty tool [4] You give it the Gbook url you're at and it does the rest. Novickas (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome Novickas. That was exactly what I meant and exactly what I think should be built into out own system...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Google book tool runs like a dream. It means I can get more done. Have a read of the demographics section of Saukorem which I personally think is fantastically interesting material about a part of the world which pretty much still lives in the stone age.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at this and it does seem awesome; will give it a spin and expect to use it often. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Pretty cool, isn't it. Just needs an Also Sprach accompaniment. Glad you guys are using it and spreading the word and happy holidays to all. Novickas (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Just want to note that the accuracy of GB citation is about 90% not 100%. This is especially true with translations or with periodical articles This isn't the fault of the conversion tool, but I never use GB citations without checking at least in WorldCat.

More to the point perhaps, I notice the script is incorporated in RefToolbar 1.0 and will suggest it also be incorporated into the more recent Gadget-ProveIt, which I find faster and smoother. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could ask the tool developers to cross check against WorldCat? Are there particular elements that Gbook tends to err on? Novickas (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The worst problem is periodicals, which appear even if you limit to books: For example,, I searched under chromatography and found: [5] which produced <ref name="Society1880">{{cite book|author=American Chemical Society|title=Journal of the American Chemical Society|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-NcBAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA155|accessdate=22 December 2010|year=1880|publisher=American Chemical Society|pages=1–}}</ref>. I spotted this as impossible; the machines given in the snippet did not exist in 1841, or, for that matter 1941. If you open the full link , and go to WorldCat you will find that the reason it shows up here is that the journal began in 1941 . In any case, the correct reference would be to the journal article, not the journal. (Interestingly, I think the image in the google books thumbnail is the title page of the correct vol.--they scanned it right, but got the metadata wrong.). GBooks will only solve this by a tighter integration with Google Scholar--I imagine this will happen in a few years,but we'll have to watch their progress--they never make an announcement. (They will also need more complete inclusion of the older material in Google scholar in the first place, though this is progressing very nicely.)

At the other end of the fixability scale, because they almost certainly have the metadata but do not seem to display it, the place is never entered, just the publisher name, which is often ambiguous without the place. . DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi D - hope you enjoyed the holidays. An inaccurate publication year is a serious problem, I'll leave a note for the tool developer suggesting that they add a message to that effect. (Here - [6]) The lack of publication place in a book cite doesn't meet the highest academic standards but since a cite using this tool includes title, author, ISBN I think it meets WP verifiability standards. Later, Novickas (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ambarish Srivastava

Good evening sir, above article Ambarish Srivastava was nominated for deletion review on 2010 February 14. The result of the discussion was moved to main space. You have participated in that discussion. It was thoroughly checked and edited by you also. I am grateful to you for your kind support at that time. At present Mr. 'SpacemanSpiff' who nominated this article for AFD previously, has deleted its major part under 'poetry' section which was cited properly. As well as he also deleted it's whole 'Architectural works' section on Yesterday 19:01, 16 December 2010 and 19:03, 16 December 2010. I contacted Mr. 'SpacemanSpiff' on his talk page where he answered to me "You can not use photographs of buildings as references for works by the person, we need reliable source references. Likewise, user submitted content sites are not valid references for poetic contributions and linking to every poem on such sites runs afoul of our external links policy. Suggest you read WP:BLP and WP:NPOV". If that content was not was as per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV then why he could not deleted it previously when this page was moved to main space, while Mr. 'Fayenatic london' has made some quarries about it on 18:46, 20 August 2010, 18:49, 20 August 2010,18:53, 20 August 2010, 18:58, 20 August 2010, 19:05, 20 August 2010 & 19:12, 20 August 2010. He was satisfied with my answers about those sections. I request you to check it. Is it justified? if not please help it. Thanks a lot. Spjayswal67 (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A bibliography of a poets published works is appropriate content for someone notable as a poet, and links to the published poems would be appropriate references to support that. However, the article does not show notability as a poet, that seems merely incidental. The notability is as an architect. It might be possible to add an external link to the sites with his poetry. as for the architecture, there needs to be some reference to the fact that he in fact designed the building, and I do not see how photographs would establish that. But if he did, and you feely-licensed photos, they can be included in the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning Sir, Thanks a lot for your kind support.Spjayswal67 (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hengameh Fouladvand

Hi DGG This AFD needs some checking on the new sources being provided to the article but the actual sources appear to be offline (Americanwhoswho etc). Is there any chance you could spend a couple of minutes seeing what you can find about them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Who's who in America is one of the sources that explicitly never counts as a RS for notability. Who's who in American Art and the other who's who derivatives are even more indiscriminate than the parent publication. Encyclopedia of living artists is so non-noteworthy a source that neither Princeton nor NYPL have it, but LC catalogs it as a "directory". As far as I can tell,everything else in a mention; the references [7] , claimed to be an article about her, turns out to be a 2-sentence paragraph in an article about several artists. . Grigor's book will be a RS when it appears next year, but the article itself indicates that it will include only one of her pictures-- with presumably a short caption. I cleaned up the article a little. My general view of articles about artists that list a string of exceedingly minor exhibitions are that the person is most unlikely to be notable. I'll check a few more and comment. DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking at this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I hope its OK but I linked your response to the AFD as the discussion of the sources sp far has been less then helpful in resolving the AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the Polack article

You don't have the right to oppose something like that. There is no way there can be an article for each supposedly racist word. You'd better stop wrecking wikipdia. Damian Wieczorek (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My only involvement was to remove a Proposed deletion tag on the article at [8]. You replaced the tag after that, and another editor removed it. As yet a third editor told you, the only way you can go further is WP:AFD. But I advise you that your chances of getting it deleted there is approximately zero. The applicable policy is WP:NOTCENSORED. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

JAMA

Hi, could you perhaps have a look at this discussion and give us your expert opinion? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 01:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

James Horley AfD

Invite your comment at an article you have expressed an opinion over previously - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Horley (3rd nomination). --Falcadore (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hengameh Fouladvand

Hello DGG I am the original contributor of Hengameh Fouladvand’s article, and I need your advice. She is an Iranian-American scholar , the Executive Director of Center for Iranian Modern Arts, a poet and a visual artist. To write the article I used Google & Yahoo searches , her public website, CIMA’s website and Persian sources on line. I did delete all the Who’s Who references from the article. I do need your help for a couple of advance searches. Tavoos Bilingual Quarterly which is among the most prominent scholarly art publications in Iran went online a few years back. Therefore, the information about the actual print issues are not accessible on line any more. However they used to be. Fouladvand’s name was among the editorial board in all the print issues, since inception, in 1999. In addition, I was able to find 3 of her research papers in major academic Journals on Iranian contemporary art, in Kelk (now Bukhara Magazine), Tavoos and ArtEast. She has also written several exhibition catalogs, one titled Alchemy. Can you confirm this through your resources. I appreciate your attention and any advice. Dr. Becket (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability/Use English/Burden conflated with content issues

File:Kanazawa-C-3209.jpg

This public sculpture in bronze is located in Kanazawa, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan. In the context of this thread, it illustrates a process of running-in-place; and at the same time, it suggests of a kind of circular, tortured logic loop.

DGG -- On one hand, Mentoring Tenmei was a failure because we didn't develop plausible strategies for averting the problem which has developed here at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Cite does not verify asserted "facts".

• In 2009, I foresaw a set of prospective issues recurring ad nauseam; and I sought help here. The counter-intuitive result was ArbCom punishment in order to molify the indignant, extravagant complaints of Caspian blue and Teeninvestor.
• In 2010, Mentorship did not address the questions with which I began nor did the investment of time encompass averting recidivism. Regrettably, my writing and weekly status reports for mentors remained opaque. I didn't manage to ask for help in a way that made responding easy or possible.

On the other hand, Mentoring Tenmei was a success because both Caspian blue and Teeninvestor appear to have withdrawn from Wikipedia, and I'm still here to address the kinds of questions their edits and strategies inspired. In their absence, WP:Verifiability/WP:Use English/WP:Burden will continue to be conflated with content issues; but my comments and questions are less likely to be misconstrued as personal attacks.

DGG -- Now that the formal mentorship period has ended, are you willing to help me develop a strategy for dealing with problems I expect to recur. These do not appear to be conventional in the editing experiences of everyone. This may be unique to East Asian topics and contributors; and if so, your perspective is all the more valuable.

I predict that problems like the one here will persist and increase in the foreseeable future -- not because this is a self-fulfilling prophesy -- but because of developments in East Asia and because of the nature of our collaborative context. This category includes the stale problems I discovered with Caspian blue at Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa/Archive 1 and also similar to what I encountered with Teeninvestor at Talk:Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia/Archive 1.

I do not invite your intervention in any specific dispute thread. Rather, I'm looking for the rare tweaks and parsing and analysis you may choose to offer from time to time.

• Looking backwards — "How was it possible for any dispute with Historiographer to have been averted here?
• Looking ahead — How can I short-circuit a developing dispute in the future?

The response I'm looking for is binary: "yes" or "no"?

If you're not interested in this kind of open-ended activity, please accept my sincere thanks for the help you already offered six months ago. --Tenmei (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at discussions there in general, there seems to be at attempt to find the "best" source, by which people tend to mean a source that will prove a point. This is not a good approach--the better is to find a range of at least fairly good sources that between them give an account of the various points of view,and use them all. Particularly helpful are modern scholarly sources, because of the convention that a historian starts with a long account of every view that has ever been suggested, before the second part, of showing why none of them are correct except the new one by the author. In particular sources on the nature of the relationships between countries will inevitably show a degree of bias--- even those one would think totally neutral on the issues, will in the course of their studies inevitably align their feelings with one side or another, and--in cases like this--are apt to have unbalanced language knowledge. The difficulties of using primary sources for interpretation are obvious; the difficulties of using 19th century British sources should be also, though people insist on using them here. WP:NPOV is to some degree an ideal statement, a goal not likely to fully accomplished. WP: RS is an oversimplification--no source is totally reliable , and no source is useless; they are of varying degrees of reliability for specific purposes. the way of dealing with a dubious source is not necessarily to remove it, but to add a better one.

The proper way of using printed sources or even those behind pay-walls is to give an excerpt or a summary, not just a reference. This should be done with particular care in non-English sources, which n controversial cases need to be quoted in both the original and in English. But it's possible (indeed, common) to cherry-[ick the statements from such sources that one wants to use, and fair quotation in context and in proportion is necessary. In the end, this cannot be judged without reading the sources in full and in the original, with sufficient background knowledge-- this is beyond what we can do here, and amounts to WP:OR, so it is necessary in difficult cases to also give what other sources have said about the source being relied on. Historical scholarship is a fascinating subject, because of this sort of complexity--but reducing it to a Wikipedia article take not only good-will , but skill and judgment.

I'd suggest one is more likely to retain good will if you refrained from saying A's source is not good (or is good) because of ... , and said instead The source X is not good (or is good) because... I find it really helps in back and forth discussion to avoid using names, except for clarity in a multi-way discussion (even then, I prefer to use abbreviated names or initials). The goal is to decrease the immediate sense of personal conflict., and paying attention to the external formalities helps.

I'd always be glad to discuss specific sources. If the problem is specific to the article, on its talk p. if more general, WT:RS or, in some cases, right here. But just link me to them, and accept I will give whatever view I take based on the problem, not on who says what--which I try to ignore, if possible. I think I'd be more useful with this than in trying to adjust content directly.

I know you asked me for a one-word answer, but few things are quite that simple. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A mite unfair to ask you for a yes-no answer to something that isn't a yes-no question, ne? ☺ Anyway … Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination)

Would you be able to help the creator with sourcing and notability issues in regards to the term conspiracy journalism? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy journalism (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not readily. The present material is not suitable as a basis for an article, & I dont really have the time or interest to to start again from the beginning. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Lucchese family articles

Im sorry for the mix up, I left my reasons for proposed deletion for articles Tony Rodriguez here Talk:Tony Rodriguez and Clyde Brooks here Talk:Clyde Brooks.

I read the articles and the references do not cover all the material written in the article, the references cover they did worked with the Vario crew and involved in robbing from the airport. These fall under original research, the subjects dont meet notability. --Vic49 (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is DurhamCollegeGuy (talk · contribs) (whom I suspect to be the same person as Aarondude (talk · contribs) and Dudeaaro (talk · contribs)) several of whose articles I nominated for deletion myself, after comparing the articles against the sources cited and finding that they didn't match. Tom Monteleone wasn't mentioned in the book cited as a source, Dominick Cersani wasn't supported by that source or any other, Larry Bilello was complete fiction, Anthony Stabile was an unsupported extrapolation, Anthony Catania was also fiction, and Michael "Spider" Gianco (AfD discussion) even made the case for its own unverifiability. And those are just the articles that I nominated for deletion. Several of this person's other biographical articles had already been deleted long since. Beware of any biographies created by DurhamCollegeGuy/Aarondude that cite the book by Nicholas Pileggi, and check the book before opining that the article is sourced. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonlinear quality of life index

• Nonlinear quality of life index (AfD discussion)

Please double-check my citation and publication checks if you have the opportunity. You have the better access to catalogues. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward J. Burks

I think TW may have eaten your nomination, here - so I corrected it, tagged the article and posted the AFD in the log. Please let me know if I screwed something up. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks, glad you helped out. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Yosef Jacobson

Hi DGG: Since you had once edited this article in the past, could you please take a look at Talk:Yosef Jacobson#Speedy disputed. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

seems to have already be declined; to strengthen the article, it might be possible to find sources on his work as an editor, or on the newspaper that discusses him. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John E. Barr (Jehovah's Witnesses)

I have to disagree with you on the question of former Jehovah's Witness Governing Body member John Barr's notability. As I've commented at the talk page, "Official" sources (ie, Watch Tower Society publications) are helpful, but the lack of external sources indicate this man's notability does not extend beyond the Jehovah's Witness community. Witness publications routinely run "life stories" of dedicated members; none of those provide any support for general notability. The WP:GNG guide excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject; Watch Tower publications are commissioned by the Governing Body of the WT Society, of which Barr was a part. If you exclude those two non-independent sources, he seems to have gone unnoticed by the outside world. BlackCab (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

First: As you know, there are many cases where we do accept such a standard, relying on internal or official sources: for people, the most firmly accepted is Olympic athletes, who may go entirely unnoticed by the outsides world as long as there is evidence of their having competed from any suitable source, including official ones limited to the Olympics. Another is state legislators, for whom sources internal to the state government are sufficient. rthe nearest related is that of bishops of territorial churches, such the the RC church: it has been consistently dicided that evidence of the position is sufficient--this position is probably equivalent. There are two standard explanations, both of which have been widely accepted. One is that such a position implies the likelihood of third-partysources. The other, which is more likely to apply here, is that the world of JW is sufficiently wide that notability within the community is sufficient. There are many other instances of this: notability among musicians is within the world of those interested in that genre of music; notable of athletes is within those interested in that sport--we do not insist there be coverage outside of the sports pages. Notability as a researcher is among those working in that field--we do not limit ourselves to those being covered by the general news sources: chemical publications are enough for the notability of a chemist. .(And similarly for many other sorts of subject than people)

Second The entire reliance upon outside sources is only one aspect of the guideline. It is accepted that the GNG may offer a presumption of notability ; on the one hand, it is only a presumption, not a proof. On the other, there are other ways of meeting it. More basically, the entire WP:N structure is a guideline, not a policy, and therefore has intrinsically exceptions--it is not expected to apply to all cases. Yet more basically, the relevant policy is that this is a special case, and special cases are provided for by our most basic policy, IAR, that anything that improves the encyclopedia is valid. Coverage of the important people in important organizations is a reasonable expectation of users, and therefore improves the encyclopedia. (The ultimate justification for IAR is that we are writing an encyclopedia for the purposes of being used, not for the purpose of following a body of rules; the practical reason is that no body of fixed rules, unless coequal in bulk to the encyclopedia itself, can cover all cases--and even so, we would wish to frequently change them.).

As far as i know, I am here stating generally accepted principles; the degree to which one is willing to apply them to special cases is of course a matter for individual decisions.Some editors here vary consistently from the basic standard in either a more or less flexible direction. Others, such a myself, vary from it in different directions depend g on the subject. I tend to be very flexible with religious organizations and people, to avoid both the possibility of individual biases, but even more to avoid overall bias from the general disinterest of Wikipedians on the subject as a whole DGG ( talk ) 12:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Following up on Michael Terman (199 in Contents)

Thanks again for your suggestions. I followed them by deleting most of the material in the two paragraphs, and adding 5 third-party references and 2 others. Would you please check the revision and see whether it is OK? If so, I'd like to delete the comment about needing more references from the top of the entry. Thanks! Saenger (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I consider it OK. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, David, and thanks for removing the box! Happy holidays, Saenger (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but how do I keep USERPAGE:SAENGER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saenger)from coming up in a google search for "Michael Terman"? I deleted the content about Terman from my userpage, and changed "Michael Terman" to mt on my "table of contents" page, but that didn't fix the problem. To reduce the problem, I updated USERPAGE:SAENGER to match the current Terman entry in Wikipedia, but I'm hoping you know how to get USERPAGE:SAENGER out of Michael Terman searches. Thanks!Saenger (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Cycle to Cannes

Hi DGG, could you kindly take a look at the revised version of this page and check it conforms to Wikipedia standards. Many thanks. —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

there continues to be no evidence for notability, and no reason to think there would be any. The only actual references is a classified advertisement, and a note in a trade paper. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Indonesian geography

Hi. An editor has recently tagged a bunch of stubs on Indonesian geography including major features like rivers and entire districts of Indonesia like South Halmahera Regency with 150,000 people living in it (please see the North Halmahera Regency for just how notable these articles are), Kumbe River, Kuran Islands etc see his tagging. I believed they are seriously unwarranted and intitally made me angry. I've begun expanding the first two Koor, Indonesia and Batuan, Bali. This editor has proposed to take these articles to AFD. Shouldn't the tags be removed as geographical landmarks are generally considered notable. But its not as if he tagged like some tiny hamlets or something, a lot of those he tagged have hundreds of hits in google books like the Batuan article and I believe he is confusing notability with lack of content.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (geography), though an essay, expresses the current consensus. Rivers are unquestionably notable. Populated islands or islands of more than very trivial size, certainly (In an AfD, a single house has been considered sufficient to show that it is populated). Villages, certainly. Formal administrative regions, at the province or subprovince level, certainly.; they would be analogous to states and counties in the US. Subdistricts, too, I think they correspond to the US townships, and I think they have all been held notable. They may also correspond to the Philippine Barangay; I recall there were earlier discussions about some of them, but I think they are currently all held notable also. The only relevant thing that is often not unnotable is unofficial non-administrative divisions, "neighborhoods". I don't think any of these are among the ones involved here.

I will explain this to the user. You can I think remove the notability tag, citing the notability essay as a reason. If he sends any to AfD, he will find they are speedy keeps.

However, I think minimum content for any populated place includes the population, whether exact or approximate. I would suggest trying to add at least that to all of the articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly kicked Wikipedia:Notability (geography) to being a guideline. It does reflect long established consensus and that's where this should be discussed per WP:CONLIMITED. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that didn't stick; it's an essay ;) I commented moar at User talk:Masem#Wikipedia:Notability (geography), and there's a thread at WP:VPP#Wikipedia:Notability (geography) has been marked as a guideline. In some form, this idea needs to be moved along. We agree here, so I propose we compartmentalize our other differences from this. This is something for next year, of course. Merry Christmas, Jack Merridew 10:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Would Sausapor meet "minimum content"? Well I think the best think would be to go on what is in google books. Same with Burma. A lot of places you can find scraps to make the stubs worthwhile so its best to be getting on with those I think, I think you or somebody had better remove those notability tags, I don't want to get into an edit war.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

much more than minimal--it a rather good article--except for the lack of external links to a local website (if one exists), My "minimal" I meant much less, just adding population figures is sufficient. (articles should not be deleted even without them, but it really is necessary to have that to give a proper idea of the nature of the subject. ) DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I was very lucky actually to find that population data for both the town and the sub district. Websites for this part of Indonesia? Nope, its pretty much stuck in the stone age I think.. Nono, regencies of Indonesia equate to counties/districts of any country, sub districts of Indonesia known as Kecamatan amount to municipalities or communes I think. There is another division after that which equates to parishes I think. Baraguays are generally tiny areas of cities I think which may after be no more than 1 kilometre. Regencies of Indonesia often contains over 10,000 square kilometres.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What I do is peruse over google maps and find a settlement which looks notable. I then do a google book search and come up with stubs like Bontobahari. I'm sure there must be Indonesian population data somewhere.. But the development with google book scanning is meaning that for many places the xxxx is a village "perma stubs" are now at least being able to contain proper content. I think these articles are valuable. It also means that stubs like Pangkajene River can be well sourced. I will continue to use this system to develop content for such places. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand it may be impractical. (Though I want to mention that historical population figures will do if you cannot find modern ones--any place that has ever been inhabited is notable for our purposes at Wikipedia .) Myself, I support making a stub article for all such places. But not quite everyone does, and I am suggesting what is the best way to avoid questions about it. I find it always best to anticipate such things to avoid the need to get into an argument. If you have further problems with this let me know. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dr. B, David, I'm a full-on inclusionist on such things. I've removed a few of the tags, and will look more during mid-week, when I'll have more time. nb: not specifically re Indonesia, where I long lived. Also, a Regency (Kabupaten) is more akin to a US county than a township, which would be akin to a Kecamatan. I built the entire navigation structure for all of these on id:wp. See template history. It has wrappers and thousands of transclusions.Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you both, excect I disagree with you over the poor judgement thing. It was claimed that both Batuan, Bali and Koor, Indonesia were non notable "useless sub stubs that should be taken to AFD". The editor clearly did not even bother to do the research so I'd disagree on that point. The current status of both articles is strong evidence in my book that they made an obvious error of misjudgement. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See the full history; I {{rescue}}d this, once before.^cite Jack Merridew 18:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Jack I believe a Kecamatan is equivalent to a Burma township and a regency equivalent to a District of Burma. Townships are definately notable and most of them have sources in newspaper which can be used, As for Indonesia I respect that some parts may be poorly covered and we certainly don't want empty stubs like id: wiki but I can appreciate that they at least have the infrastructure set up,just need the contributors to expand them.... So the best thing i'd say is to go where the sources are initially. If either of you can point me to some population data for the regencies I'll sort them out.

In regards to the people who don't want the articles David, an observation is that they dislike xxxx is a village...... type sub stubs with no content. I'd wager that a larger proportion of editors would think a stub like Bontobahari constructive rather than deconstructive. The trick is to find some info and useful sources I thnk which makes people view them as "yes OK this is a start" rather than "you;ve dumped all these articles on us, who is going to expand them" sort of thing. I'll begin on the regencies later...♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: an observation is that they dislike xxxx is a village...... type sub stubs with no content.- hahaha - that is the issue on the Indonesian project as there have bene cases where they never get touched again - the presumption that a later reader will fix it is a fallacy, which is why the current brouhahah has started - unfortunatle for their perceptions - I agree with both sides - and can see merridews reversions as valid and davids tagging as valid for some (not specifically what he did though) - the fine line as to which and what has not been established at the wp indonesia talk page - which was the original intention - but hey this must be wikipedia right? SatuSuro 07:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. What we need is a cleanout of Indonesian articles, to source and expand them and route out the hoaxes, but its gonna require a lot of effort. What I seriously think you need to get out of habit of thinking Satusaro is that every village/small town of Indonesia can't be expanded as is non notable. Its not 2005 anymore. Although google has only scanned 12 million books out of 130 million already it is becoming possible to find scraps of info from google books which can be put to some use. I agree its time a new phase began with WP:Indonesia and we AFD the non notable articles and expand the xxx one liners. It needs a serious injection of quality I think. But I can't do it all myself!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've requested that the maps of the regencies are uploaded into the commons from Indonesian wikipedia, they are very decent. Meanwhile I've begun listing the sub districts of each regency and will come back and add sources/expand later. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the areas where what the wikiproject wants does not matter, because there is overall consensus across the Wikipedia project : all such areas, including the regencies, are notable enough for articles. What you can decide, is what aspect of the necessary work you wish individually to emphasize. It is a perfectly rational decision to work on getting a few articles done to a higher standard, but if someone else thinks rational to try to get minimal article stubs on every one of them, that is equally rational, and should not be interfered with. Let me put it this way: Jack and I do not all that often agree with about notability, and we agree about this. By all means remove the hoaxes, but if existence can be demonstrated for these geographical features, the articles will be strongly defended. I think we all assume there will be more people joining the project after us to do the work we do not finish. . DGG ( talk ) 14:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

David, I have no time, today; major real-life-drama. See my talk page for a bit of this, and @talk:Cas. I'll find a free day this week, and will transwiki maps as Dr. B asks, and start stubbing. How about getting Colonel Warden to added sources? Jack Merridew 18:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Batuan, Bali now at least asserts notability....♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Meulaboh

nb: I've been flipping locator maps to Commons per Dr.B's request Aceh's are done. While doing this, I noticed a picture I uploaded most of six years ago. The US Navy took it; I just found it and uploaded it to commons with my original account, now blocked. Last year, someone tagged it as a Featured Picture. Anyway, Commons:Category:Regency locator maps of Aceh now has 18 images ready to go. Some others are done, already; some by me, I believe. There are about 500 total. I don't know, yet, if id:wp has them all; they're fairly recent work by someone who's done nice svg versions. I'm going to crank on more, like the rest of Sumatra and Papua.

Have you read Nathaniel's Nutmeg? My current in-flight book. “A rousing historical romp ... a tale of courage, treachery, endurance, cowardice, greed, and derring-do.”—The New York Times Book Review. “An exciting account of the dangerous voyages, bizarre transactions, and desperate battles of the spice wars”—The Washington Post. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Commons:Category:City locator maps of Aceh, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of Crusio

I see you closed the AfD for the AIMS microscope Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated Imaging Microscope System. You may be interested to know that the creator of that article seems to have a "sour grapes" situation not unlike the one with Turqoise127/Smartse. See this ANI thread headed for a full ban. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually there were two articles created on this. I was talking about the creator of this one, although some thinks it's one and the same user, although that's hard to prove at this point (checkuser data is stale). Tijfo098 (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggested a solution at AN/I, & if other eds need a similar block, then that may be easier than figuring out the puppetry. (However, the Sgaran account has not been used since May, so perhaps no action need be taken there.) DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hodson Hall

When this article was new, you prodded it, but the prod was removed by the author (who, surprisingly, is someone I knew in college!). I've just nominated it for deletion; you may be interested in the AFD. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Kajervi

Hi David, first of all, Merry Christmas! And thanks for your praise in your ANI comment yesterday... :-) User:Kajervi has been adding several good stubs/articles on academic journals and I think can be trusted with autoreviewer rights. --Crusio (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

done DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Michele Ferrero (priest)

Hi David, I just had a few questions about this article, where you removed a prod earlier today. I'm was wondering if you could expand on how the resources you added (from WorldCat) indicate notability. The concerns that led to me proposing it for deletion were the absence of any biographical coverage, and the lack of any coverage of his published works other than directory-like entries like the one you cited. I'm having trouble seeing how the sources deal with these concerns, and how they indicate notability as a professor (which you mentioned in your edit summary).  -- Lear's Fool 00:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It does not prove notability ; they provide WP:V, which is much more basic. If it could not be verified he existed and did the sort of thing the article says, the article would have to be deleted. But we're talking about WP:N. WP:PROF indicates that being an authority in one's field is notability. This is normally indicated by published work and by positions. Professor in an important university is such a position, if it can be shown his position is important. Showing the published work to be important would need checking in appropriate review sources, which I have not yet done. This is really tricky in theology, let alone for as theologian in a Chinese university, as library holdings are likely to be very low. But since the WP:PROD policy is that " Proposed deletion is the way to suggest that an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, but that it does not meet the more stringent criteria for speedy deletion", I do not regard it asa situation that is uncontroversial, but rather one that requires investigation. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I understand where you're coming from now. I'll do a bit more research with that in mind, and (if you don't mind) I'll let you know what I end up doing with it. As I'm sure you've discovered, finding sources for this individual is even more tricky because of a much more notable Michele Ferrero.  -- Lear's Fool 02:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Freshman Members of Congresses

Tell me how a broken template that contains nothing but a singular redlink "needs discussion". It's about as uncontroversial a deletion as you can possibly have, if you ask me. Discussing it would just be overkill. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Don't be a friggin' idiot, DGG. The template only has one redlink on it and absolutely nothing else. I fail to see how it's not a G2 — clearly someone made a broken template in error and no one wants to fix it. Does this really need to slog its way through TFD for seven days? You're just instigating process for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It was already at TfD. I have only asked a question there, not yet expressed an opinion: TfD is the place for that, not my talk p. The speedy deletion reason given was "test page" -- and I do not see how that applies. Nor does the template meet any other speedy reason. I remove inapplicable speedy tags regardless of the underlying merit of the article , template, or whatever--and I hope all responsible editors checking speedy do the same. You replaced the speedy tag I removed, which, as you certainly should know, is not permitted. Ditto for the one on Template:Congress Freshman Members. Both your initial tagging and your restoration were against policy and not conducive to a rational discussion, and I warn you against repeating. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I still think it's a G2 because someone clearly tried to make the template but they stopped so early on that it's linked to a nonexistant article, completely devoid of content and meaningless. And even if you don't think it's G2, then surely it can just be deleted as housekeeping, an extension of A1/and or A3 due to the complete lack of content/context, or even WP:IAR. I just don't see any possible reason why something so completely devoid of content needs to crawl its way through TFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Templates cannot be deleted as A1 or A3, only articles can. Housekeeping it's not, any more than most template discussions are. There's consensus against routinely using IAR for speedy--the speedy criteria are meant to applied narrowly and not extended to mean "something which we ought to get rid of". It would be very hard to argue that either of these templates are acutely harmful to the encyclopedia or need any but the normal actions. There is a good place for this discussion, and that is at TfD. If you want to convince me or anyone, there is the place to do it. Not here.

I see another admin has just supported your view that they fall under housekeeping, but I have challenged that, and intend to proceed further if necessary. Arbitrary actions on unimportant things are wrong, because they serve as precedents for doing it on important things also--the point of procedure is to avoid a slippery slope.. But wherever this is followed up, it will not be here. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Doctors pages

Thank you for your insite on Melissa Palmer liver specialist. If you get a chance, your expertise would also be appreciated in reviewing the following sites for deletion - Thomas Diflo/ Deborah Axelrod/ Antonio Gotto/ any doctor that appears when you type in Dr. Weill into wikipedias search engine - as about 50 profiles appear with little to no references to back up their pages. Chumleychat (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Kosh Agarwal??? wikipedia worthy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosh_Agarwal Chumleychat (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi DGG, and thank you. Frankly, I can clearly see the problem here - I was very surprised to learn that there were about 500 e-recyclers in 2002, and certainly more now. I think that's a fatal condition for the article.

However, none of my work will be wasted - I had two personal goals, and the more important one was to give readers the information they needed to get their old PCs a chance to be reused instead of simply shredded (I grew up on a farm, and hate to waste anything). I've now identified about 40 U.S. NPOs that do that. So what I intend to do is get those 40 up on a webpage somewhere that can be referenced in one link, and then later get as many of those NPOs as possible into proper Wikipedia articles (about 8 already are).

So if the article stays up a couple of days while I get things organized, the readers will at least have the information they need to make year-end charitable contribution decisions. I've already gotten an okay from an NPO president, now we just have to find the right place to put it. I'm going to his NPO on Tuesday (I volunteer there - but there's no chance of a job as he has had to lay people off).

I'll get this done right on the next try - hopefully by Thursday. Thanks again! Simesa (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the two pages to User:Simesa/List of personal computer refurbishment and recycling centers in the U.S. and User:Simesa/List of personal computer refurbishment and recycling centers. This should meet your needs. They cannot stay there indefinitely, however--when you are finished, please just place at the top a line reading : {{db-author}} , and they'll be deleted. I can understand that you thought initially that these might become articles. (And some of the content from the worldlist page can be used in other articles here--fell free to use it.) DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Update of the Article, Chris Ojigbani

Thank you very much for helping me out in my article on Chris Ojigbani. It was my very first article here and I learnt from your help. After I read your message that I should put more references, I put them. Later I noticed that one of the refrences I put may not be permitted because immediately a warning tag came on the article, saying I should use secondary references. That made me to suspect that the reference I picked from the website of Pastor Chris Ojigbani may be the cause of the tag. I put a reference from the ABOUT US of Ojigbani in the space where the article says that he considers his ministry is not a church. So I put that reference because in the ABOUT US, it stated his ministry is not a church. But when I saw the tag, I removed the reference and was able to see an article from a newspaper that states Ojigbani's ministry is not a church. But after changing it, the tag is still on the article. I don't know how to remove it. Kindly help check the article and help remove the tags, if okay. Once again thank you very much and have a prosperous new year.Emeka2011 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It may take some more work, & I will look at it. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC) .

Final question (I hope!) on Michael Terman entry

David, sorry to bother you again, but how do I keep USERPAGE:SAENGER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saenger)from coming up in a google search for "Michael Terman"? I deleted the content about Terman from my userpage, and changed "Michael Terman" to mt on my "table of contents" page, but that didn't fix the problem. To reduce the problem, I updated USERPAGE:SAENGER to match the current Terman entry in Wikipedia, but I'm hoping you know how to get USERPAGE:SAENGER out of Michael Terman searches. Thanks! Saenger (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a NOINDEX tag, which will help eventually. it will be deleted from the Google cache sooner or later . It is possible to ask google to remove it; the instructions are at [9]; however, according to those instructions, that page will first have to be deleted. I can do that; I should probably also delete the two existing subpages--one is already in article space, so it should be deleted anyway, the other has content which can be moved to your talk p. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, David! I appreciate your help.Saenger (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Idea

Hi DGG, i really like your idea & i'll try my best to make at least stub article for each member, may be a detail one for some. But i didn't get, what you mean by "semi-automated ways", i'll appreciate if you provide some information about it, and you're really very much experienced on wikipedia so, i'd like to learn more about it from you. Bill william compton (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-fragility

If you want to take down anti-fragility then be my guest. I saw an interview on audiovideo.economist.com, which is when the concept entered the notability realm for me. If you're worried about promotionalism, I won't be offended if you remove it. Crasshopper (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

no need to delete, there are alternatives: what I did was redirect it to the article on him. It should ideally be redirected to the section where it is discussed, but the subheadings are likely to change, and the system for updating redirects when titles change only works with article titles, not section titles. Perhaps the main article should be reorganized to have a section on "economic theories" , & if I or anyone does that, the redirect can be updated: it would then read #Redirect[[Nassim Taleb#Economic theories]] DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

will i be given proper chance and time to create my article in proper manner ????????

i am trying to create a genuine article about If questions and the sites related like ifangle, ask, answer, forumspring but before i can edit and complete you delete it. i even used hang on yet you are not considering. thats not my website. i dont even know the owner but i got answers of my questions over there and i found it worth having a place in wikipedia and the first creator of page was someone else i edited and recreated the page. i believe that this article is worth having a place in wikipedia so at least give me proper chance and time of 48 hours so i can make it a proper article and then if you find it inappropriate then delete it with regards priya_1188r keep smiling :)

If you have references to show notability, write an article on a user subpage, and either ask me, or as at WP:Deletion Review. If you do not have such references, do not even attempt it until you do. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that I am not the only admin to delete it--and least one other admin did, when you tried to make the article under a variant form of the title. When someone relies on the argument that because we have articles of famous web sites we should have an article on a brand new web site, its usually an indication that the new web site is thoroughly unnotable. Each article must stand on its own merits. But the article was speedy deleted not primarily because of making no realistic claim to notability, but primarily of being written in an entirely promotional style: the article was devoted to why the idea behind the web site was a good idea. Wikipedia is not for promoting good ideas, or anything else. It is for articles about things that are already important, as judged by third party references referring to them.If you have them, try to write a descriptive article based on what they say. Until then, the advice I must in all fairness give you is that there is no possibility of an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please help me to understand?

I apologise for creating the page Risk Benefit Solutions so many times. I understand now why it was deleted so many times. In response to Cind. comments about the page, I followed a tutorial on creating a sandbox page. I followed all the instructions and to my surprise I have now found that the name , Risk Benefit Soutions has been 'banned' until April next year. I really am not trying to be defamatiory, solicite advertising or promotion or be defamatory. Please will you reconsider your decision and point me in the right direction to creating a page in the correct manner. Thanks very much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianparr (talk • contribs) 08:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

the article has been deleted three times; most recently by me, but also by 2 other administrators. The reason for the deletion is first, that there is no claim to importance, and second, that the article is primarily or entirely promotional. Either is sufficient, and both apply. The firm is an insurance broker. It might possibly be important, but the ere is nothing in the article to indicate it. If the size is such that it is of significance, there needs to be references saying so--for example, that it is the largest such firms in the country. These references must be from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or directories or press releases, or material derived from press releases, and they must document the importance by providing substantial coverage, not just giving the size or mentioning the firm. . You also need to write like an encyclopedia article, not a press release. A press release or other promotion is meant to stimulate interest among those who are not yet familiar with the company and its products. An encyclopedia article is meant to provide information about something important enough that people will come to an encyclopedia looking for information about it. The submitted article in its latest version was entirely the former. The advice and explanation Cindamuse gave you is quite correct, and is basically saying the same thing as I am, though a little more elegantly. If you have references to show the importance, you can write a descriptive article with the references in your user space, and then ask me or any other admin to look at it. (Remember not to copy from a web site -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable.) If you do not have the references, the only responsible advice I can give you is that an article will not be possible until you do. For further information see our FAQ about business, organizations, and articles like this and also WP:FIRST. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi DGG

Thank you for your response. I have reviewed both yours and Cindamuse's reponses and I have taken heed of your advice. I have begun to create the page in a user page rather than in the live arena. I will work on the page and revert back to you for approval. I know that you are not in the business of giving second chances, but if you could reconsider your decision to block the name Risk Benefit Solutions, I would be grateful. I will obviously not post it to the live arena until it has received approval first.

Thanks so much once again.

J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianparr (talk • contribs) 08:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Medical_Subject_Headings

I stumbled upon this category: Category:Medical_Subject_Headings. Not only are these lists not very useful (as far as I can see), but they seem to constitute a copyvio: If I go to the NLM page that is linked at the top of all these lists, it is clearly wirtten that you have to fill out a Memorandum of Understanding and from my (imperfect) legal understanding, they are copyrighted for international use. Somebody put in a lot of work here, but I'm not sure we could (or even should) keep this. I'd appreciate your opinion on this and advice on how to handle it. --Crusio (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

as I see the pages there, they are links to their site. If you examine them in edit view, they are simply lists of queries to their database, not a copy of it. It remains the case that at least in the US , whose copyright law we follow, linking is not subject to either copyright or the need for permission. (And, more generally, if use is legal in the US and the country of origin, it meets the copyright requirements of enWP; in this case the US is the country of origin. The reason for selecting the US rather than, say, the UK, is that's the location of the servers, so whether it is legal to use outside the US would not matter). Further, when you examine the actual file, you will find that what is included in the list of links is just a list of terms, not the full file--see for example [10] for the full file contents of a record. I think the people who prepared those pages were aware of the rule; I do not see how we violate it. We have not downloaded the file, . As for uses, I see at least four: they serve as authoritative sources for the definitions, they serve as a potential a link between systems; they serve as a very useful list of red links , for which we need articles or cross-references; and they would serve as a justification of notability for any of the concepts. (as an example, we actually have no article on automobile driver examination, Mesh I03.125.299 and it is not covered in the related articles we do have.)

I have notified the 2 people who have mainly been working on them of this discussion.

When I came here, I raised a similar question about the use of the LC subject headings; It was decided that what we were using was an informative summary. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I don't have much to add to what DGG said - I don't know much about the subject (I just moved the pages from WP space into article space following a brief move discussion where no-one objected to the plan), but based on what DGG says above, it seems there is no copyright violation, and the pages form a potentially useful list (more useful than many of the lists that feature on Wikipedia) which needs to be split over many pages, as some long lists do.--Kotniski (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive search & whitelisting

DGG, could I convince you to install one of those archive search thingies on your page? I can't locate the thread where we discussed pseudonymous authorship by Clark, AC (2009). The Revolutionary Has No Clothes: Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Farce. Encounter Books. p. 91. We have this interesting dilemma; the pseudonymous authorship is a complicating factor, as is "his word vs Clark's" from the new account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, this; I've not dealt with something like this before-- over my head :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, New Years resolution to clean things up. But as I was foolish enough to think I could properly maintain named archives, instead of leaving it all to the bot, I shall need to specify the search path.

As for the discussion, I found it by looking in my user contributions for that date. It's at the RS Noticeboard, section 49, not my user talk. I had only a very brief comment.

as for the spam whitelist, I would be very reluctant indeed to whitelist a petition--the promotional purposes of such a link are obvious.

and the only way an individual can prove who he is is by communicating through OTRS. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, my bad memory, I really thought that conversation had been on your talk page. No wonder I couldn't find it. On the general issue, I 'spose I can find a way to reword the text to account for the claims by the editor who says he's the producer, or ask if he wants to write to OTRS ... this is going to be interesting. A task for the New Year. Thanks so much for your help. Happy New Year, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)