User talk:DGG/Archive 56 Sep. 2011

                                       ARCHIVES

DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Barnstars, Awards, etc.

Reminders

Topical Archives:
Deletion & AfD,      Speedy & prod,        NPP & AfC,       COI & paid editors,      BLP,                              Bilateral relations
Notability,               Universities & academic people,       Schools,                       Academic journals,       Books & other publications
Sourcing,                Fiction,                                               In Popular Culture      Educational Program
Bias, intolerance, and prejudice

General Archives:
2006: Sept-Dec
2007: Jan-Feb , Mar-Apt , M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D 
2008: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2009: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2010: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2011: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2012: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2013: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2014: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2015: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2016: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2017: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2018: J, F, M , A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2019: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2020: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2021: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2022: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O, N, D
2023: J, F, M, A, M, J, J, A, S, O

 

            DO NOT ENTER NEW ITEMS HERE--use User talk:DGG

Wikipedia Loves Libraries

I was wondering if you could offer some sage advice here? We're still in the spitballing phase, and I wonder if you could point out work we could use to help local librarians understand the natural Wikipedia/Library connection. Your subpages seem a good start, but I'm thinking we'll want to construct a librarian entry point, with FAQ and ideas. Perhaps the folks over at GLAM would also have some input. What do you think? Feel free to answer there. BusterD (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

)

Discussions about citations for notable alumni

Dear DGG, you have always been a Dean to us occasional editors. Please enlighten me on an issue being discussed with another editor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muhandes#Citations_on_QES_page To roughly summarize the issue, he insists on citations for all alumni listed on a school page, such as this one QES, HK, even tho those same citations already appear on the alumni's bio pages. I cited MIT Alumni as example to show that as long as those citations appear on the people's bio pages, they would be considered verified. I thought the bio page would serve as hub to verify everything about that person. Please advise. Much obliged.--Kgwu24 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

replied there in some detail. Nobody questions that everything must be sourceable, but this is not the same as saying everything must be explicitly sourced inline, or even in the same article. Such lists are mere summaries. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your eloquent response, as usual. It seems a trivial matter that the guy would hang on so hard-nosed. There is at least one kind of unintended consequence for having the citations on the school page. Since it's primarily visited by students, those who are not familiar with Wiki will misread that the citation is to support notability. Just imagine the implication -- someone winning a high school scholarship is considered to be notable.--Kgwu24 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

People here often hang on to trivial matters with great determination. The way of working makes it easy for someone who is really determined to keep at it obsessively. This is relatively non-trivial compared to some of the things the most persistent fights have been about: the most recent is when to use hyphens { - ), as compared to en-dashes ( – ), -- even though most computer users cannot tell them apart on the screen. ( I generally use -- in comments, though I know it is not permitted in articles where I must use an en dash without spaces—like this. ) and whether or not spaces go before and after. Even with references, there is no agreement about whether they should always be required in-line (they are for FA), and the various styles of referencing (footnotes are not the only acceptable method, though some think they should be). Precisely because the matters are trivial one can give long arguments in each direction, none of which can be definitively refuted.

Your comment that the footnoting confuses referencing for notability is correct, but there are other reasons also. Excessively footnoted articles are hard to read; footnoted articles are extremely difficult to edit; the current Wikipedia methods of inserting footnotes are confusing to the extent that they keep people from contributing at all (I use ProveIt though I dislike parts of it); most important, it detracts from concentrating our attention on the really questionable material. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hentai

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hentai. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Clear example of needless counter-productive provocation. I commented accordingly DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

User Alan Liefting

• Please help me, this user is at it again trying to delete several pages. Geek2003 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

you can, expect this to continuer even though most of the previous vbatch of nominations for deletion did not succeed. (not even no-consensus or merge, they were mostly just kept by consensus). You can expect every such article to be nominated. Unfortuantely, it is even possible that the ones which do not get deleted the first timeto be renominated until, by chance or exhaustion, they all are--though I hope the ed.will not be doing that. When someone, acting in good faith as this editor is doing, is truly convinced that certain material does not belong, they sometimes do get their way. The most important thing you can do is to add good references to these and all the similar articles. Articles with really good references are almost always kept without much trouble--articles with borderline non-3rd party references are a problem, as well they ought to be. Good referencingis important, and if the eds. work can get you or others to add references, it will have been a good thing for the encyclopedia. Don;t get angry at it, just do the necessary work, and probably he will realize. (You do not have to notify me; I try to look at all afds on topics where i have something to say) DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I am under the influence of a rather good Rosé wine vintered by Selaks so what I am about to say will have to be reviewed once I have less alcohol coursing through my circulatory system. DGG, thank you for your assumption that I am editing in good faith. You also give a good appraisal of the situation that we are dealing with. Geek2003, good move on your part to request the assistance from an inclusionist WP editor!! But I think there are rules about soliciting help for AfDs. It my be illegal. As for the inclisionist/deletionist continuum I make no secret of the fact (well I haven't now!!) that I am a deletionist when it comes to articles on products and commercial organisations. Editors need to be vigilant to prevent any insidious SPAM articles being created that do not fit in with the WP "landscape". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to see my attitude towards promotionalism, look at my deletion log: about half my 12,000 deletionsare speedy G11s. As we both know, I totally disagree with you about the way to handle this material: product information is not spam; product advertising is. There will be some inherent promotional effect from our writing objectively about anything notable for being good or useful, but that's an inevitable byproduct.

I understand your concern about canvassing; it has arisen here before a number of times. My view is that people can see from my talk p & its archives that it does not particular good to canvass me if what you want is support, for I comment as I think fit in the particular circumstance, which is not always what is hoped for. Like AN/I, it can boomerang. I always give the best advice I can about how to meet the consensus whether or not I agree with it: surely you agree with me agree that what articles like these need most to be kept is unimpeachable third party substantial sources, something which is usually not as good as it ought to be. Anyway, as I said, I pay attention to all articles of this type to the extent I am able. And it is not canvassing to ask someone previously involved in an issue to return to it. And considering the >500 people who watch this page (Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched users), presumably including most editors who strongly disagree with me on anything major, informing me here will inform them also. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

May I make a Request for Comment (RfC) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art). Marshallsumter (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to give it a full discussion and made a suggest for how to proceed. Basically, you need to publish your analysis in some RS first, not use Wikipedia or Wikiversity as quasi-publication. In all sincerity, I hope you'll be able to establish it in the customary academic way. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Snow Close Of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of power metal bands And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of speed metal bands

I am asking you to at the very least to wait out the full 7 days of the discussion of these discussions.

I feel that with the claim that a number of references do exist purportedly claiming the entrants as playing these genres may not be true as sources have not been produced to substantiate this claim.Curb Chain (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the closes were totally obvious on the material presented. Myself, I can not tell the difference between these genres, and iI've almost never even heard of the bands. So its entirely an abstract argument to me; I would not have closed in this manner something about I had an opinion. I do know that the articles on the bands assign assign them to genres., normally on the basis of references. Since they do, the references are present. Collecting those with a specific genre into a list is then an obvious thing to do, as obvious as making a category. Everyone who commented on any of these article agreed. Iconsiderthat a valid snow closure. You yopurself came there asking only for better referencing,According to WP:BEFORE, that;s a justification for deletion only if you tried to find such, and failed. Again, I cannot see that you could have failed, since the genre references are in the articles in the bands. Now, opinion varies over whether these references need to be copied over. I think that in list articles they generally do not, some think they do; you're apparently among the, . So the solution is to copy them over from the articles if you want them explicitly referenced. Not only can it be done, but you can do it. You seem to have brought these AfDs to force other people to do that, and that's an illegitimate use of AfD. Since youe entire objection can be met by fixing the articles, and you I presume care enough about the subject to work on it, go and fix them. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think it was appropriate to snow close those discussions. You bring valid points, but I should not be excepted to find references if I chose not too. One way of looking at it is that I may have inappropriately nominated the articles for deletion, but snow closing such nominations were inappropriate as well.Curb Chain (talk)

I never insist on things like this. If your really want me to reopen I will, but what is it likely to accomplish? (Nobody forces you to find references, or even to move them, but if you choose not to fix, that's not a reason to delete, since any one of thousands of others can fix. ) DGG ( talk ) 13:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

German collective guilt

I have done some work on this and so would like to look at the previous version. Please could you userfy it per your comment in the discussion. Warden (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. However, note that placing it back into the edit history of the current version has allowed another editor to revert to that deleted version, contrary to the consensus of the previous AFD. Please delete all those versions again and the edits which are now based on them. Warden (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• • See below. This has become a total mess, and is now at AE: [1] Probably some other admin should decide, but my current view is the same as yours: that the only reasonable course is to delete the whole thing and start over, with some of the present and prospective editors removed from the issue. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

page deletion or not

I am trying to get National Republican Guard (Portugal) deleted so that another page (on the same subject) can eventually be moved to it. (There are currently no objections to the move [2], for the time being at least!)

Since I have apparently have chosen the wrong way to get it deleted, please advise me on the right way.

Thankyou! Mesoso2 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

after the 7 days provided for discussion, I shall make the move for you if I see no objections. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

John A. Ware Article

Thanks for the input on the draft User:Cmagha/John A. Ware; three of us are following up on some sourcing leads from a professor. We'll also give it a good going over for promo language. Your insights were very helpful.IndtAithir (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect ordinals

Hello. I would like to ask why you have deleted 33th Yukon general election? User:Robertgreer has recently searched for incorrect ordinals, and saw no need to delete such innocent spelling errors. Could you please undelete the page? And it could be categorized correctly. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not protected it, so nothing stops you from re-creating it, except I hope the feeling that it is not worth the trouble. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask who put it up for CSD? Because if it is a certain user, I may need to report him for harassment. 117Avenue (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My request for undeletion still stands, I would like the full edit history restored. 117Avenue (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Metaplano

Can you take another look at the article you de-PRODed. If you ignore the linked web pages on which the word "metaplano" doesn't appear (all 3) and the books in Italian whose title doesn't contain "metaplano" then we're left with one Italian book using the word in it's title. That book doesn't give "metaplano" a capital "M" which suggests "metaplano" is an Italian word (rather than a name). Hence I don't see how the article establishes notability on the English Wikipedia. DexDor (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

afd would be the way to get it deleted, but I suggest first some help from someone who has expert knowledge of the subject, knowledge of Italian, or at least sufficient access to the references to read beyond the title. It's reckless to conclude what the contents of a book is or isn't on that basis alone What I do know of Italian is that they use upper case more sparingly than English. And from the considerably greater amount I know of title transcriptions in bibliographic records, some countries, including the US, lowercase everything in a title. It's a weird aberration started by Dewey that has become a tradition. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help

... With the Wendy Holden page, I appreciate it and thank you for your time taken to fix the page LiteratureWorm (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

AE related to the German collective guilt AfD

Hi, I mention you here. Basically, I had the same thought as you did here, and now I'm the subject of an AE report by a long standing wiki-enemy of mine. The whole situation is/was very confusing and if you can help clarify it, that'd could help.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've commented, but part of comment was that it might be better for you to avoid working on the article, and leave it to those with no prior history on the general subject of Eastern Europe. I can see why this topic would be a flash point, but I think it has to be covered. I have no intention of editing it myself. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion's fine. I have no "deep" interest in the article and only made the edits there in response to the AfD. In response to your specific comment though [3] I do want to note that my intention was not to "endorse" that version fully (this is evidenced by my later comment on the talk page). Rather, it seems I was thinking along the same lines as you were here [4], specifically the statement that I do not think it was in fact OR, but rather an extremely non-neutral presentation that would need complete rewriting, which I agree with. When I restored the old version I was thinking the same thing; restore the old version but rewrite it. I began to edit it in order to neutralize it, as in here. The plan was to go through the article, cut out the POV stuff and get it to something which is both notable and neutral, but events - the restoration of the other version - took over, so I never had a chance to do that. Ideally I think a true NPOV version of the article would be something which would incorporate the best of the old version as well as the new (just not the dab page, please, the only purpose of that was to affect what Wikipedia mirrors do).

Boson's edits (and S. Lacrtia's) seem fine. The C. Warden version needs some serious expansion. I do think that I have something to contribute here, if only in discussion on the talk page, but, like I said, at the end of the day, this is just something I came across because of the AfD and do not really feel like wasting my time on if it's going to be a whole lotta trouble and provide an excuse for various parties to make a battleground out of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions. When a page needs radical edits, some of the intermediate stages may well be unintentionally unacceptable--in particular, it's tricky to revert only what needs reverting. All you now need to do is to say on the AE page that you plan no further involvement. I gave you a lead-in there to say it. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

David, I am rather disappointed with your approach here. VM did nothing wrong by becoming involved here. Another editor tried to "win a dispute" by wikipoliticing, and you, by suggesting to VM that "it would be more peaceful if he went away" are, in fact, endorsing the battleground behavior carried out by that other editor. In effect you are saying that if editor X is harassed by editor Y, it is better for editor X to go away so no further conflict is created. By extension, you are encouraging further harassment and battleground mentality, because its very purpose is to achieve exactly that - scare away certain editors so that POV pushers, who cannot win in a content debate, have the articles to themselves (or at the very least prevent certain other editors from becoming involved in their improvement). I do not plan on becoming involved in this article, but I fully reserve the right do so whenever I feel like it, and if any trolls try to prevent me from editing this or any other article, I'd expect the community to back me up rather then to advising me to quietly go to a more quiet neighborhood. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Piotrus, I've given my position previously. Those previously involved in disputed areas should stay away from them, or at least from the articles in the area most likely to arouse strong feelings. I do not like figuring out who harassed whom--often there is some degree of blame on both sides, & I do not like to assign blame to people. Thus I generally stay away from AE and similar, and block as little as possible. I give advice based on my judgment of what is likely to happen, and what I think likely to happen is that when people continue too long in such areas, especially on the hot-button aspects, what will happen is rarely constructive. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, I do prefer peace to justice. Justice, like truth, is beyond our capabilities. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

University of Metaphysical Sciences

You're welcome to rewrite the page if you want, good luck with that woman who hated the subject matter as she'll attack the page as soon as you write it. I'm out of the picture now. Wiki is just too negative for me to deal with when it comes to articles. It was nice to see that at least there is one sane and level headed person here on wiki, you, who can look at things objectively. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalina Z (talk • contribs) 06:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#Key industries

Hi DGG. Do you have access to any publications that will be helpful at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#Key industries? I've rewritten the article at User:Mrwalis/Key Industries but am uncertain that it will pass another AfD. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot think of a simple way to get more good references except to ask them if they know of any. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article BMA Entertainment

Hi David, I note that BMA Entertainment has been deleted. IIRC, in May I added sources to demonstrate notability as part of the Hong Kong Recording Industry Alliance "Big Five", and perhaps de-prodded it. I can't remember whether it was still deficient on other grounds. Would you mind taking a look, please? It has a Chinese wiki article zh:種子博美娛樂. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It was Alexf who deleted it, and, according to protocol, it's better if you ask him first. I did take a look at the article, & it seems a little promotional by our usual standards, which could be fixed by some cutting. I don't really think it should have a A7. I get really bothered by speedy or prod nominations for articles that are stable articles in one of the other Wikipedias. Sure, junk gets submitted there as well as here, sometimes simultaneous to both, but most of the time it's just that someone forgot to include the references from the original or used a Google translation that did not explain things clearly. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Good call, thanks. – Fayenatic (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

New Jersey Center for Evidence Based Practice

Would you please undelete the page? I was in the process of working on it, adding more references, etc, to make it meet wikipedia standards, and I don't have it saved elsewhere!

Also, please provide some logical response to the comments I posted on the speedy deletion talk page, in response to why this article should not be deleted.

I appreciate your understanding as I work to improve this article.

Thanks.

Yurinator180 (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of writing you a message about it on your talk page, which will explain the problems. If you think you can fix them, start over. Very little of what you have written is usable, for the reasons I give there. I also want to call WP:COI to your notice--I explain further on your talk page. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I read your response to my reply as to why it should not be deleted, and yes, I find this response much more understandable and acceptable. As a reviewer of medical journals myself, I understand the need for objectivity. And yes I agree with everything you said. I contacted you because you initially did not provide any explanation as to why you deleted the page, that is all. This gave me the impression that the article was being targeted for deletion prematurely or for nefarious reasons. But since you have provided a logical argument for this, I agree with your choice to delete the article, and it will not be rewritten. Take care.

Yurinator180 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion here is normally by at least two steps. The most rapid process, and the one used in this case, is called "Speedy deletion". Somebody --any editor at all --identifies an article as suitable for deletion, usually by checking our list of new particles (there are about 2000 of them a day!) Sometimes we do go too fast, but often it is clear from the first that there can not be a satisfactory article, and there is no point in waiting with the editor doing yet additional work that will not be accepted. The form notice is placed immediately after the deletion is recommended. I don't think these form notices are very good--they attempt to cover all situations and therefore give no specific help, but it is necessary to use some sort of automatically generated form, so the editor can be notified as soon as possible. An administrator then reviews the suggestions. Some admins just delete if it meets the standards for immediate deletion, but many of us try to say something specific also if it appears it will be helpful. I sometimes send fairly elaborate ones, as here, but it takes a while to write one, as I need to explain our policies in general, and discuss the specific problems of the article in question, and whenever possible offer some suggestion for how to proceed. Your message crossed mine. I welcome your suggestions for how we could do it better. We can only get these suggestions form people whose articles have run into problems. I do a lot of this sort of work, and I'll follow up anything that might be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussions about citations for notable alumni

Dear DGG, you have always been a Dean to us occasional editors. Please enlighten me on an issue being discussed with another editor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muhandes#Citations_on_QES_page To roughly summarize the issue, he insists on citations for all alumni listed on a school page, such as this one QES, HK, even tho those same citations already appear on the alumni's bio pages. I cited MIT Alumni as example to show that as long as those citations appear on the people's bio pages, they would be considered verified. I thought the bio page would serve as hub to verify everything about that person. Please advise. Much obliged.--Kgwu24 (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

replied there in some detail. Nobody questions that everything must be sourceable, but this is not the same as saying everything must be explicitly sourced inline, or even in the same article. Such lists are mere summaries. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your eloquent response, as usual. It seems a trivial matter that the guy would hang on so hard-nosed. There is at least one kind of unintended consequence for having the citations on the school page. Since it's primarily visited by students, those who are not familiar with Wiki will misread that the citation is to support notability. Just imagine the implication -- someone winning a high school scholarship is considered to be notable.--Kgwu24 (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

People here often hang on to trivial matters with great determination. The way of working makes it easier, for someone who is really determined can keep at it obsessively. This is relatively non-trivial compared to some of the things the most persistent fights have been about: the most recent is when to use hyphens { - ), as compared to en-dashes ( – ), -- even though most computer users cannot tell them apart on the screen. ( I generally use -- in comments, though I know it is not permitted in articles where I must use an en dash without spaces—like this. ) and whether or not spaces go before and after. Even with references, there is no agreement about whether they should always be required in-line (they are for FA), and the various styles of referencing (footnotes are not the only acceptable method, though some think they should be). Precisely because the matters are trivial one can give long arguments in each direction, none of which can be definitively refuted.

Your comment that the footnoting confuses referencing for notability is correct, but there are other reasons also. Excessively footnoted articles are hard to read; footnoted articles are extremely difficult to edit; the current Wikipedia methods of inserting footnotes are confusing to the extent that they keep people from contributing at all (I use ProveIt though I dislike parts of it); most important, it detracts from concentrating our attention on the really questionable material. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks. I don't want to give the impression that there is conflict between us about the general matter of handling ELs--improper ELs are something we both consider it a priority to get rid of. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think first I do owe you an apology, when first looking through the contributions, I actually thought it was you ... there is considerable overlap in the articles both edit, and of the 'opposers' of XLinkBot you are one of the strongest. But things clearly did not match up (even though there were some points that made it likely, others made it very unlikely). I decided to wait and see whether the IP would screw up (which they did in the end).

It would be good to have a re-analysis of the reverts of XLinkBot. I've done an analysis of 30 MySpace reverts quite some time ago (1-2 years), and at that point, 29 of the reverts were 'good' ('superfluous links': MySpace of individuals or old members on band-pages, non-existing MySpaces, unrelated MySpaces, plain spam, fanpages, etc. etc), only one was a case where it was the actual MySpace of (IIRC) the band (though the official bandpage was on that page as well - I would describe that as 'I would not have reverted, but not added either'). I did a couple of months ago a quick-check of 10 YouTube reverts, and that contained 2 copyvios .. a significant concern. Yes, more and more YouTube become official, still way way more is either unsuitable in the first place, not official or even plain copyright violation, I do not believe there is a major shift in the percentage of official video's on YouTube.

Surely, there will be reverts of good links, but I think we need to see it in percentages of the total reverts on a domain (and if the percentage of reverts of good links, in relation to the badness of the other reverts, becomes too high, then indeed such domains should be removed from the list). If you put yourself to it, it is possible to find a lot of allowed YouTubes, Twitters, MySpaces, etc. etc. (see the edits by the IP that started this discussion). But I still believe that by far most of them, when added by 'new' users (who are not aware of our policies and guidelins), are not suitable. Of course, all should be personally analysed on one end, on the other side, reminding editors quickly that they have to take WP:EL/WP:NOT/WP:COPYRIGHT etc. into account is also important. And with 18 edits which add external links per minute (46 links added per minute) it is impossible to check them all by hand (and preferably in the first couple of minutes after addition). XLinkBot is extremely soft, tries to be friendly, especially on its first revert. And it does not get too often to AIV. One needs to 'push' it, and most of the editors that get to a level 3 or level 4 warning do go 'yell' at the bot first .. if only this IP would have done that after having been reverted 4-5 times, I might have noticed earlier and resolved it (I've now added a detection for this to the bot); we've had workarounds built-in ever since the very beginning of the bots that work this, most now also accessible to all admins on-wiki). This type of editors, editors who are continuing to add good links and are continuously reverted, are pretty, if not extremely, rare.

Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I recognize the same problems you do. I rework a lot of organization pages, and I remove youtube and the like from the EL section if there's a regular web page, just like I remove all the links to the internal pages of the main site. (Hey, can you think of an automated way of detecting that particular problem?) (What I see more of in the areas I work is valid Facebook pages than YouTube pages, but I avoid working in popular music and related areas, which I think is where YouTube is prominent). Certainly the percentage of bad links to such pages is on the order of 99%, but that 1% is still a substantial number. I recognize the need with our volume of material to have computer assisted tools for editing; I don't consider the problem is mainly with the bot--or other bots, but the editors who think like bots, or who completely trust them.

However, I admit that I have extended good faith a number of times when it hasn't been present and other people would have been more skeptical; I prefer it to the opposite. Incidentally, I have carelessly edited a few times when logged out , but I think I have always asked for oversight. I don't do POINTY things, but I will sometimes defend those who do if I think the point is important. I know I am working in some areas fairly near the limits, and so I try to be extra careful not to go beyond them. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That 1% is about the amount I guess that gets reverted wrongly on that type of links. I do agree, of those editors in that 1% some will be bitten (what, of all the reverts, good or bad, some will be bitten by a friendly remark that their link is not appropriate), and that is an issue, but also a small part of editors is bitten when you leave a (non-bot) personalised message on their talkpage. I do that sometimes, and I do still get yelled at, or blindly reverted, or editors just never return. I know, c'est le ton qui fait la chanson (sorry, don't have a reference for this quote), but sometimes that 'ton' does not even make a difference.

You said somewhere, that you manage to convert promotional editors .. you actually have to group them. You have the promotional editors who are here to promote a person, a company, or an organisation - editors who are often specialists in an area and would be an asset to Wikipedia when converted - you have the 'promotional fans' - who only care about their subject and putting them in the best possible light, they don't care being converted and doing something else - you have the SEO's - who are only out for money, they edit what they get paid for (and often, also their own company when they are here anyway) - and true spammers (sildenafil, tramadol, muscle enhancers ...), they only care to have their links here. Every converted specialist is one, and that should certainly be an attempt. But also of those, if you approach them with silk gloves and hugs and kisses, some will be bitten, while a friendly remark does also convert editors sometimes (I do see the 'I did not know that, I'll take more care in the future' messages).

One of the issues is the IP or new editor, who is boosting with activity, and picks up the policies and guidelines really fast. Those editors should be made exempt from XLinkBot (whitelisted) as soon as possible, but they are difficult to detect in the plethora of edits. XLinkBot now alerts me of editors who have more than 9 messages from XLinkBot, either way, such editors need to be looked at (either they are genuine editors and should be whitelisted, or they are slow spammers and should be blocked for a bit of time to actually get the message). Maybe the note "Due to the nature of what the bot does, it will occasionally revert additions which may have been appropriate. As an RC patroller you are always required to make sure vandalism is obvious and uncontroversial, please do not revert someone who reverts or 'undoes' an XLinkBot edit based solely on the bot reverting the addition originally." on User:XLinkBot's userpage should be strenghtened and expanded, and be linked from the AIV-reports the bot produces (see IPuser-reportstring and user-reportstring in User:XLinkBot/Settings, there also the messages the bot leaves can be adapted in 'real time' (settings are loaded before every revert; feel free to adapt if necessary, please do check if the messages it actually leaves are formatted properly, they are concatenated in a bit complex way). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ELs

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks. I don't want to give the impression that there is conflict between us about the general matter of handling ELs--improper ELs are something we both consider it a priority to get rid of. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think first I do owe you an apology, when first looking through the contributions, I actually thought it was you ... there is considerable overlap in the articles both edit, and of the 'opposers' of XLinkBot you are one of the strongest. But things clearly did not match up (even though there were some points that made it likely, others made it very unlikely). I decided to wait and see whether the IP would screw up (which they did in the end).

It would be good to have a re-analysis of the reverts of XLinkBot. I've done an analysis of 30 MySpace reverts quite some time ago (1-2 years), and at that point, 29 of the reverts were 'good' ('superfluous links': MySpace of individuals or old members on band-pages, non-existing MySpaces, unrelated MySpaces, plain spam, fanpages, etc. etc), only one was a case where it was the actual MySpace of (IIRC) the band (though the official bandpage was on that page as well - I would describe that as 'I would not have reverted, but not added either'). I did a couple of months ago a quick-check of 10 YouTube reverts, and that contained 2 copyvios .. a significant concern. Yes, more and more YouTube become official, still way way more is either unsuitable in the first place, not official or even plain copyright violation, I do not believe there is a major shift in the percentage of official video's on YouTube.

Surely, there will be reverts of good links, but I think we need to see it in percentages of the total reverts on a domain (and if the percentage of reverts of good links, in relation to the badness of the other reverts, becomes too high, then indeed such domains should be removed from the list). If you put yourself to it, it is possible to find a lot of allowed YouTubes, Twitters, MySpaces, etc. etc. (see the edits by the IP that started this discussion). But I still believe that by far most of them, when added by 'new' users (who are not aware of our policies and guidelins), are not suitable. Of course, all should be personally analysed on one end, on the other side, reminding editors quickly that they have to take WP:EL/WP:NOT/WP:COPYRIGHT etc. into account is also important. And with 18 edits which add external links per minute (46 links added per minute) it is impossible to check them all by hand (and preferably in the first couple of minutes after addition). XLinkBot is extremely soft, tries to be friendly, especially on its first revert. And it does not get too often to AIV. One needs to 'push' it, and most of the editors that get to a level 3 or level 4 warning do go 'yell' at the bot first .. if only this IP would have done that after having been reverted 4-5 times, I might have noticed earlier and resolved it (I've now added a detection for this to the bot); we've had workarounds built-in ever since the very beginning of the bots that work this, most now also accessible to all admins on-wiki). This type of editors, editors who are continuing to add good links and are continuously reverted, are pretty, if not extremely, rare.

Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I recognize the same problems you do. I rework a lot of organization pages, and I remove youtube and the like from the EL section if there's a regular web page, just like I remove all the links to the internal pages of the main site. (Hey, can you think of an automated way of detecting that particular problem?) (What I see more of in the areas I work is valid Facebook pages than YouTube pages, but I avoid working in popular music and related areas, which I think is where YouTube is prominent). Certainly the percentage of bad links to such pages is on the order of 99%, but that 1% is still a substantial number. I recognize the need with our volume of material to have computer assisted tools for editing; I don't consider the problem is mainly with the bot--or other bots, but the editors who think like bots, or who completely trust them.

However, I admit that I have extended good faith a number of times when it hasn't been present and other people would have been more skeptical; I prefer it to the opposite. Incidentally, I have carelessly edited a few times when logged out , but I think I have always asked for oversight. I don't do POINTY things, but I will sometimes defend those who do if I think the point is important. I know I am working in some areas fairly near the limits, and so I try to be extra careful not to go beyond them. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That 1% is about the amount I guess that gets reverted wrongly on that type of links. I do agree, of those editors in that 1% some will be bitten (what, of all the reverts, good or bad, some will be bitten by a friendly remark that their link is not appropriate), and that is an issue, but also a small part of editors is bitten when you leave a (non-bot) personalised message on their talkpage. I do that sometimes, and I do still get yelled at, or blindly reverted, or editors just never return. I know, c'est le ton qui fait la chanson (sorry, don't have a reference for this quote), but sometimes that 'ton' does not even make a difference.

You said somewhere, that you manage to convert promotional editors .. you actually have to group them. You have the promotional editors who are here to promote a person, a company, or an organisation - editors who are often specialists in an area and would be an asset to Wikipedia when converted - you have the 'promotional fans' - who only care about their subject and putting them in the best possible light, they don't care being converted and doing something else - you have the SEO's - who are only out for money, they edit what they get paid for (and often, also their own company when they are here anyway) - and true spammers (sildenafil, tramadol, muscle enhancers ...), they only care to have their links here. Every converted specialist is one, and that should certainly be an attempt. But also of those, if you approach them with silk gloves and hugs and kisses, some will be bitten, while a friendly remark does also convert editors sometimes (I do see the 'I did not know that, I'll take more care in the future' messages).

One of the issues is the IP or new editor, who is boosting with activity, and picks up the policies and guidelines really fast. Those editors should be made exempt from XLinkBot (whitelisted) as soon as possible, but they are difficult to detect in the plethora of edits. XLinkBot now alerts me of editors who have more than 9 messages from XLinkBot, either way, such editors need to be looked at (either they are genuine editors and should be whitelisted, or they are slow spammers and should be blocked for a bit of time to actually get the message). Maybe the note "Due to the nature of what the bot does, it will occasionally revert additions which may have been appropriate. As an RC patroller you are always required to make sure vandalism is obvious and uncontroversial, please do not revert someone who reverts or 'undoes' an XLinkBot edit based solely on the bot reverting the addition originally." on User:XLinkBot's userpage should be strenghtened and expanded, and be linked from the AIV-reports the bot produces (see IPuser-reportstring and user-reportstring in User:XLinkBot/Settings, there also the messages the bot leaves can be adapted in 'real time' (settings are loaded before every revert; feel free to adapt if necessary, please do check if the messages it actually leaves are formatted properly, they are concatenated in a bit complex way). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Regarding your comment on my talk page regarding the unblocking of the IP, that is fine. The only thing is I don't think he understood why the bot was reverting his edits, from recollection I did try to explain that Twitter links and social networking sites etc generally aren't acceptable, my understanding is because anyone can create a Twitter and social networking account but they didn't seem to understand that, I refused his unblock because of that reason as well but when he asked to be unblocked a second time I thought I'd better leave it then and let an independent admin review the case. I had hoped to log in this week in case there was anything needing doing but unfortunately I've just been so snowed under at work, working 11 hour shifts some days I've just not had the time or energy to do that. Thanks for your help and the advice though :)--5 albert square (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

the problem is that 99% of such links are improper, not 100%. And some of that 1% are not just permissible, but essential. This obviously creates screening problems, and mistakes will be inevitable. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 19:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nuclear Time Unit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nuclear Time Unit. 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. Rancalred (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As to RFC

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

Regarding IEEE-related articles

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

Sourcing help for William Woodard

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Woodard looks interesting. The guy probably predates most online refs, but his story looks somewhat plausible. Would you have time to do some sourcing magic on him and see if you can substantiate what's there? I'm taking the nom at face value that nothing relevant has showed up in Google... Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought I would actually have to go to the library for this, but I did it at home in half an hour at midnight. Never take a search at Google on face value--people think it includes G Scholar and G books, but at present it doesn't. A proper search in the Googles yielding all the information one can get from them is a non-trivial exercise. I've told that to my students for many years now. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

1972 Texas gubernatorial election

DGG, I have the election results and photos of the 1972 Texas gubernatorial election, I just need the state map of the counties that Dolph Briscoe (Democrat) and Henry Grover (Republican) carried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 725edwards (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry for the delay in responding, but maps are something I'm not much good at that. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Alex Day for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) 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. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewellery

OK, I've restored. I suppose non-notable or essay/OR would have been better reasons, but if you think the editor can make something of it, that's fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is this now?

Can you please explain to me where this is now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mugginsx_is_using_sources_from_a_fringe_site_to_suppress_reliable_sources

When I seached for it I got this: • User:Barek/index2 Mugginsx is using sources from a fringe site to suppress reliable sources | user LindsayH | timestamp 06:00, 09 September 2011 page ... 22 KB (2,580 words) - 01:13, 10 September 2011 View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search"

Further when you press the link to the archive nothing happens. How can I respond further if I am asked to by an administrator if I cannot find it? If it is archived, why can I not find it? I need further guidance on this matter if you please.

Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

When there's nothing said for 2 days, the discussion is archived. The way to find an AN/I or ANB discussion is to search in the box at the top of the AN/I page. this one has been archived in AN/I archive 719 at [5] If anyone wants to revive it, they can either un-archive it, or , more usually, start a new discussion, and you'd be notified.

The assumption is that discussions end at some point, either by action being taken, or by nothing being done for the time being At this point it's settled, nothing has been formally decided. I do not consider there is a formal ban on anybody about anything, but you & everyone would be well advised to at least act as if there were an interaction ban because whoever starts a quarrel again is usually at least initially considered to be responsible. the goal is for everyone to stay out of trouble. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A Proscriptive Relationship and Jordan Lynde

Hi there! I'm not quite sure what's going on with A Proscriptive Relationship which has/has not been tagged for speedy deletion but still seems to be there. I decided not to complicate things by tagging it for AfD, given that the changes are all very recent and the article creator, User:Hazeleyes14 appears to be deleting tags. Thought best to ask you to have a look first, since you've already had eyes on it. Article on the young author, Jordan Lynde may need attention at the same time. I have to log off now but will come back later and see what's going on.--CharlieDelta (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right that the afd should decide, but the greater notability would be the author: if the author is found notable by the afd, which i doubt very much, then the book can be mentioned there, with a redirect. The article on the book was an absurdly promotional plot summary, and I re-deleted it at first, Even if the book itself were notable, it would not be acceptable, so I redeleted it.. Thanks for mentioning this here; I commented at the afd DGG ( talk ) 14:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution - Zoellick bio

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Zoellick bio". Thank you. --Currency1 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have replied, though not the reply you may unwisely have hoped for. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Gurlez Akhtar

I undid your removal of the BLPProd tag on the article. A blog/forum reference was added after the Prod went up. As it is not a reliable source, the tag should remain. Bgwhite (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

as the ref is in Punjabi, I cannot evaluate it. I took the discussion to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurlez Akhtar, without a recommendation either way. Question. Do you yourself know enough of the language to check for sources? DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd never protest taking a prod to AfD. Reference is from www.unp.me which is, "The UNP Punjabi forum has discussions about Punjabi music..." Doesn't matter what the ref says, it is on a forum that anybody can post and is thus unreliable. I know we have had this discussion before. It comes down to verifiable. From WP:Verify, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I'm unable to verify that he is notable because I'm unable to find any source. If you took it to AfD, you are also unable to verify. The author of the article was unable to put any reliable source in the article. If we are unable to verify then it must be deleted. I've saved many an article that had no references in English or not Latin alphabet references. I admit that the ones I saved had translations available via Google translate. Bgwhite (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

ditto. G translate is often helpful enough, together with understanding the format. My idea is, let's give others a chance at it. Ideally, prod alone should do that, but sometime AfD is in practice more helpful. It and an/i are the only wp processes that get enough attention. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

AFD

Any thoughts on the notability of Roy Eriksen? Loads of hits in google books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr B, I know you've been around here long enough to know not to use WP:GHITS as an argument in a deletion discussion, and I'm sure you know PROF, ANYBIO, and GNG like the back of your hand. Also, you are more than capable of clicking a link, doing a news search, scholar search, etc., so why on earth wouldn't you actually offer an opinion with real supporting evidence? Being the author of books in itself doesn't demonstrate notability. ^Bongo_matic 00:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised, Bongo, that any editor who understood G Scholar would use the low number of hits there as an argument for deletion of anything in the humanities. I have almost never encountered a full professor in a major research university who was not found notable here. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as an argument for deletion, but (as I intended to imply in my nominationcomment) a (weak) lack of argument for keeping. Indeed, the notability guidelines work this way—something affirmative fact is required to meet them (even the intrinsic ones—in which case it's simply a demonstration of inclusion within a class.

The career of the individual in question appears to have received little note in sources that are conveniently available to me and I haven't seen anyone here argue that other sources have identified more. Your opinion at the AfD was just that--an opinion, possibly—no, probably—with compelling reasoning based on guidelines, with consideration of specific accomplishments or publications behind. But such reasoning was not offered along with the opinion, so I'm not sure if it's just general feeling that someone who's been in the trenches for 20-odd years is notable, or if Agder is a "highly prestigious" award or if Early Modern Culture Online is a "major well-established academic journal" in the subject area, or what other considerations may be determinative. ^Bongo_matic 15:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

the determining factors in most non-ovious AfD discussions in any subject are opinions. The key words we use "substantial" "authority" " reliable" are all non-quatitative. Myself, I'd certainly be in favor of a more quantitative categorical approach--not in order to reach fairer results, but to avoid discussions over topics which could go either way. One of the traditional values of a reference source is consistency, both consistent level of writing and consistent coverage, and Wikipedia notoriously has neither. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The opinions are supposed to informed by verifiable facts (e.g., "editor of X") used in conjunction with interpretations of guidelines ("X is a major well-established journal"). Of course, whether X is a major well-established journal, or whether an individual's (verifiable) contributions to a field if inquiry have had a "significant impact" are opinions. Your own thought process would be useful to me, anyway, and I'm sure to anyone else who stops by the AfD. ^Bongo_matic 16:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

With all due respect, a deletion discussion is supposed to be up for at least a week, to generate opinions from a variety of editors. It's inappropriate to one person to unilaterally decide that this issue is not up for discussion and that the article stays no matter what. It would be appropriate to offer you opinion and rationale as part of the AfD discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

so I have always thought myself. Where did I make this error? Are we talking about a prod, or an AfD? DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, DCG. Well, I guess at least we're on the same page then. I'm afraid I don't know what a prod is. I did ask an admin for help, and now that the nomination has been properly placed, I've come by to give you a neutral notice, as a fellow editor involved on that page, that the nomination is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 12. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again. I've just looked up WP:PROD, which I see is Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Clearly, I don't go around proposing articles for deletion much.  :)   I'm unclear on the difference between proposing for deletion and nominating for deletion, but now that you've pointed me in the right direction for procedure, I can try to suss it out. Oy, so complicated... But thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Or actually, I guess, the correct link to the discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American comic book industry timeline. Wow. I swear, I'm a college graduate and a white-collar professional. I don't know why I'm finding this procedure so complicated, and I thank you for bearing with me. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WP was designed a little bit at a time, each new part attached wherever there was an gap that needed filling, The net result can be quite disconcerting. Even if we started out and did it over in a rational way, a few more months, and everything would be a hodge-podge again. The are places to get a good orientation, in this case WP:Deletion Policy]]--from which you'll see that a prod, like the one I removed, is a deletion request that applies only if nobody wants to object to it--its a convenient way of handling a lot of things to which there is unlikely to be an objection. If there is, then anyone who still cares sends it to AfD, as you have done, where the community gives its views , for 7 days, and another admin decides what the rational balance of opinion is. I'll go there and give my view, and we will see what people think. It makes sense that an admin can throw out utter junk by themselves once it's called to their attention, because some sorts of junk are unmistakable, but any decision beyond that is up to the community. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The International Journal of Social Quality

Hi, could you please have a look at this article? The journal's website does indeed claim that the journal is listed in these databases, but the first issue only just came out, so I am a bit surprised about that. Are any of these databases selective? --Crusio (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

not really. Of the publisher's total 15 or so journals, only 2 or 3 are in Scopus/ WoS, so we cannot assume this will be either. Redir to publisher, maybe. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good suggestion, done! Thanks, --Crusio (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

City councillors

Actually, we routinely keep city councillors for a significant number of major world cities, not just New York City and Chicago. Just off the top of my head, past consensus has specifically ruled to keep city councillors, for example, in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, London, Manchester and Sheffield, and I could easily find numerous others if I actually wanted to put more than ten seconds into researching it any further. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

routinely, if notable by GNG? or notable as a matter of course like mayors?-- which is what I meant. I have no objections to extending the limits of notability as a politician, if we do it uniformly. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick BLP question

What do you think of [6]? Revert, ask editor to refactor, keep? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

rollback, which I did. NNo point in refactoring something like this. Advise the author to quote briefly from several unquestionably reliable secondary sources if they want to try again. If really well known in this way, there will be sources saying so. This is the sort of thing we cannot use primary sources for, becausr they might be selective quotation, and where we'll have to check the sources also. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nova Science publishers

Could you please comment at WP:RSN#Communist crimes against humanity about Nova Publishers. TFD (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Self-assessment

Hello DGG - you may already be aware of this Foundation initiative, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Since you are a long-standing member of the Article Rescue Squadron and I don't think I'm the only one who'd like to hear your thoughts about it. Novickas (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sharon Gaber

DGG, unless I'm wrong, I don't think there is any kind of inherent notability in being a provost, and thus I don't see a credible claim to notability. If I am wrong, please point me in the right direction. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not say the person is notable: I said there is a sufficient claim to importance to pass A7, which is much less than notability. I think and continue to think that anyone who has a professorial rank or has written a non-self published book has some plausible claim to importance, whether or not they are actually notable being another question. (In contrast to, say, to some who asserts being a graduate student, which no reasonable person could think a claim to importance) Now, since such an appointment at most places is not a routine job, is the chief academic officer (which means they make the final decisions on new faculty appointments and funding and tenure), and normally goes to a senior full professor, one whom the others will respect enough to accept the decisions. At a research university like Arkansas, I'd say, that if investigated, there's a decent chance the person like any full professor will actually be notable through their academic work, though that's not at all a certainty, and needs to be shown. I'd never argue for keeping on such grounds, but it does pass a7. I suggest giving the author some time to find that information, before starting the AfD. I left a pretty clear note about the need for it. I could look myself, and if necessary, I will do so, but most of the time in such cases the ed. does the job themselves--they just need to be told what is required. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not about to start an AfD. I was tempted to use BLPPROD, but decided it was more fun to find some verification. Problem is, it's another one of those biographies that is a drag to put together from what meager sources an outsider can find, coupled with all the usual academic problems (database access, finding published works and reviews thereof). So I'm going to leave it be; with the one reference I added it won't be prodded. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite used to fleshing these out--I do two or three a week, and I wlll not forget to go back to this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

AGF

Per my comment, you should always try to WP:AGF. -- samj _in^out 08:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong in what I said, and I've retracted most of my comment and changed my !vote. Things can look differently the next day. I gave you my apology there, and I think I need to give it again here. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your apology — most appreciated. I can see how you could have got the wrong impression but keeping cloud topics clean is almost a full time job in itself so it's tempting to rush egregious abuses through. -- samj _in^out 09:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Signing the MOU

I noticed that you are listed as an Online Ambassador for the English Composition class. Please sign the Memorandum of Understanding for that class here. Thank you. -- Donald Albury 13:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability of books

I would be glad of your advice on assessing notability of books. New user Demossoft (talk · contribs) has input a string of articles about books by a Lebanese author, Lina Murr Nehmé:

• 1453, Mahomet II impose le Schisme Orthodoxe (Worldcat shows it in 18 + 12 + 10 = 40 libraries)
• Baalbek, Monument Phenicien (5 libraries)
• La Douloureuse Passion de Jésus-Christ (5 libraries) (she provided historical notes)
• Prophéties de la Bible pour Le Liban Moderne (Arabic version in 1 library)
• Le Liban assassiné, lettre ouverte à Monsieur Sarkozy (not in Worldcat)
• Les otages libanais dans les prisons syriennes, jusqu'à quand? (not in Worldcat)

I have told him about WP:BK and about COI; others have PRODded two of the books, and Demossoft removed the PRODs with (not unreasonable) requests for more time.

The suspicion of COI and promotion makes me want to look hard at notability. Figures to the right are the number of libraries shown in Worldcat as holding the book. On that basis, the first passes the "dozen libraries" threshold in WP:BK#Criteria, but the rest do not. Depending on whether more references are produced, I am considering an AfD for all the books except the first. My questions are:

• Is the Worldcat library count the right measure to use against the WP:BK threshold?
• Any other ways to assess them, bearing in mind that they are in French?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, she is perhaps notable as an author, since two of her books are in many but not all of the major French university libraries, so an article on her and a merge seems reasonable. There's even an English language source, [7]. I agree with you the writing articles for even the really minor works indicates a lack of understanding of Wikipedia. Normally people even with COI either write the author article first, or an article on one of the books, usually the most recent. As for library holdings, Worldcat gives the same as the French university Union Catalog, sudoc, [8]; I am not aware of any union catalog for French public libraries, and these are in any case, not the sort of books one would expect to find there, I often look for an additional indication of the importance of French academic books from German academic library holdings, which are more likely to do well than the US. I use the superlative German-based international union catalog, Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog KVK , which has an English interface, [9]. In this instance, almost none of her books are present there. I think however a thorough search would probably find reviews of her books--I think a thorough search would find reviews of essentially all academic books from major publishers, and if we took BOOKS literally every notable author would have some or all of their books separately notable, as would many non-notable authors. I just thought of a way to summarize my view of that guideline: books, as well as sports and popular entertainment, are among the things over-covered by the press, especially the coverage of academic books by academic journals, and so the GNG for these subjects is way too broad. To the extent Wikipedia:Notability (books) incorporates it as criterion 1, it is way too broad. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I shall try to explain things to the author. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See a review of her Mahomet book on a website, including a short interview with the author. This makes the thesis of the book look interesting although possibly fringe. The book is translated into both English and Arabic, which suggests there is a publisher who thinks the book will find readers. Surely there are reviews by historians if anybody knows how to find them. Not sure if this onefineart.com web site is a reliable source for anything but it could be an external link. Combining these separate articles on the books into one article on the author is probably best until the additional sources are found. The publisher of the Mahomet book, Francois-Xavier de Guibert, looks to be a mainstream French publisher. they are described as a Christian publisher in their small article on the French Wikipedia: fr:Éditions François-Xavier de Guibert. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree they're a mainstream publisher. As I cannot source by myself everything submitted to Wikipedia I tend to work on sourcing the ones I think most notable/important/encyclodia-worthy, or articles where interesting questions are raised in the AfD. And I regret to say I no longer have remote access to most of the humanities databases, so I need to be even more selective. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you did have access, what humanities database would you check? EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-writing SOS_Online_Backup.

Hi, I'm currently Re-writing the article SOS_Online_Backup. Though I'm on the starting stage I see that you have already reviewed the article, so i wish to inform you that I might need you assistance to check if it is of a wiki standard.

regards

Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 04:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

the refs, as I earlier said, include 4 RSs; tho the key NYT one is a short albeit highly favorable mention, 2 are substantial, (I fixed one link to lead to a more adequate review on the site); in my opinion it should be OK, but a great many articles on computer maintenance programs have been subject to requests for deletion at AfD-- some of them fair challenges in good faith, but perhaps not quite all of them. I'll do a double check for promotional language & copyedit when you ask me to. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Will edit it and let you know.Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 07:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have rewritten the article completely. Please double check for promotional language & copyedit. Thanks so much for your support. I agree with you about the AfD--, My wish is that every single information should be available in wikipedia, when we put a stones name that was taken from moon i want that in wiki, the reason is wikipedia is a true source of knowledge without any promotion and one sided like most of the web sites.Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 08:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I have also applied for the feedback . Please do the needful when you have time. Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 15:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Orléans

As you have contributed to this page I draw your attention to recent developments to it which appear to be vandalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your response on that page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC).

Note. The other editor involved in this matter, Sillystuff84, has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

yes, not surprising. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is disturbing to encounter bad faith in Wikipedia. Until I learned of the block, I had resolved to quit Joan of Arc matters. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 13:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 13:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:German collective guilt

Hi David, I notice that the banner at the top of the talk page says "This page was nominated for deletion on 2 September 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.", but the link from "the discussion" is to the discussion at the earlier AfD in October 2007. I wonder if you could sort this out, please?

I didn't realise what a can of worms I was opening when I AfD'd the malformed disambiguation page I found at that title while stub-sorting! I had read, but not understood, Storstark's note of April 2010: I can now see the idea that a poor dab page was better than nothing at the title, as it would then be copied over into mirrors of Wikipedia and over-write the deleted article. Ingenious, but not obvious to me at that point. I hope it can now develop into an agreed article. PamD 19:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fix it. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, Thanks, have asked User:Courcelles as the closer of the AfD. PamD 10:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dan Bongino AfD

Hello DGG, I have general concerns and specific concerns here. You seem to be arguing that major party candidates for the U.S. Senate are presumed notable, even if they have never held high office before. Does this also apply to unelected candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives? Why discriminate against the People's House? Why discriminate against candidates of the American Independent Party in 1968? They got a heck of a lot of votes that year. How about unelected candidates for state legislatures, who are otherwise treated equally in WP:POLITICIAN? Candidates for the British Parliament or the Indian legislature? Canadian, Australian and New Zealand candidates? Since we cover the whole world, how about unelected Italian, Ukranian, Brazilian, Nigerian or Nepalese candidates for provincial legislatures? Don't forget Indonesia, Malaysia and the Phillippines? People Google these candidates worldwide, and we know that Wikipedia ranks high, very high. Do we allow these articles to be illustrated with the campaign logos of these various candidates? Do we allow these campaign biographies to stand without any substantive NPOV description of their opponents? Do we have the reliable people power to prevent hagiography?

As we know, notability is not temporary. So if Joe Blow ran for the U.S. Senate in some state in 1988, came in fifth in the primary but got written up in four newspapers back then, well then Joe Blow must be notable. By the way, Joe Blow now runs a chain of tanning salons. But he's notable because he once ran for the Senate.

Now to the specific case of Dan Bongino. He is not the Republican candidate for the Maryland U.S. Senate seat in 2012. He is a candidate in the Republican primary and other Republican candidates are running or expected to run. Other candidates for the office get short shrift or are entirely unmentioned. The article is adorned with the candidate's official campaign logo. The references appear to be reiterations of press releases sent out by the campaign.

I continue to believe that an NPOV article about the race is the best place to cover such candidates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This was my error and I fixed it at the AfD. Very carelessly, I assumed he was the Republican candidate. I completely agree that primary candidates are not normally notable. Essentially any member of the party who can announce they're going to run, realistically or not, and a great many can even get enough signatures to get on the primary ballot. Yes, that would be opening the floodgates. But once the Republicans do pick a person to oppose the incumbent, I continue to think its another matter entirely. At the most expansive estimate, if he include all members of national legislature as well as senators, and state governors, we get about 600 every 2 years from the US at most, fewer because many of them will be repeat candidates, so it's more likely 200 a year. I definitely would not go into candidates for state legislatures, which is where most of the Joe Blows are found.--and it's not as if we're eliminating them anyway, we include the ones who do get elected, and in some states there's a very high turnover. It gets complicated outside the US, because once we go beyond a pure 2 party system it's always a question of how many parties to include. It gets especially tricky for countries that use proportional representation. Thus I just propose the US at present. But suppose we went further and had ten or a hundred times the US number: 2000 or 20,000 a year. We're not paper. Even 20,000 is about 5% of the number of articles we add every year. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Spammy "article" on alleged academic journal; seeking your input

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communications & Strategies. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Crusio removed the spam, & what's left will hold. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Asking for forgiveness is easier than asking for permission

I'm sorry, I used you as an example of different admin styles during an RfA here[10]. I certainly hope you don't mind. Have a good day :) Trusilver 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I had seen it yesterday; an appropriate & much needed comment in that RfA. However, in saying my editing is almost entirely related to admin functions, it might give the impression I don't do content editing. Rather, about 9/10 my effort is content editing—but on those articles I see in the course of admin functions, primarily articles I fix that would otherwise be deleted. I would be doing the same even if not an admin, & I asked for adminship in good part so I could more easily remove the ones I could not fix. Otherwise, I rarely use the buttons. I work primarily to help and teach the people who will write more articles, so my efforts are multiplied by the people I help stay here. That effect is the role of teachers & librarians in the world. That's what I was doing long before Wikipedia, & I think Wikipedia the best possible place in the world to do it: to teach people how to explain things to others. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Zephyrhills High School

Did you mean to semi-protect Zephyrhills High School there, because full-protection seems a bit extreme at this point. –MuZemike 03:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A note that I've reduced the protection on this to semiprotection. None of the vandalism, as far as I can see, was coming from autoconfirmed users - it seems completely over the top to lock out the vast majority of the wiki when the harm was coming from new accounts which can easily be (technically) distinguished from the average editor. Ironholds (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

right--my error. For one thing, we need something in reserve :). Thanks for fixing it. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I'm also going to leave the latest account a slightly more detailed message explaining what he can do rather than what he can't. Ironholds (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, and when warning people about trying to get schools deleted - what policy actually says is that schools have to follow the notability guidelines too. I realise that the essays supporting uniform inclusion are many, and widely supported, but if you're going to use "policy" as an argument it's useful to be precise. Ironholds (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary Sources (Email) in Articles

Hi DGG

I hope you don't mind me contacting you, I got your name from the Editors Assistance list. I conducted a GA Review of the article Robert Abbott (game designer) which you can read here: Talk:Robert Abbott (game designer)/GA1. One of the issues that I identified was that quite a bit relied on emails received by Hi878. I checked WP:Primary, and understand that primary sources can be used if necessary, although with caution on BLP pages, however nothing is mentioned about emails - merely self-published Websites. Do you know of any process, perhaps through OTRS that we can arrange for the emails to be acceptable references?

Thanks in advance for your help, Deadly∀ssassin 07:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OTRS already certified the email as coming from him, with the template at the top of the talk p. and it's "published" on the article talk page, so it could be considered to essentially has the same status as if he had published the same thing on his blog: usable for routine details only. The problem I see is that on his blog, we could also quote from it about what he says are his motivations, , and I just don't feel comfortable doing that based on the email. It's a blurring of boundaries. I would certainly not give GA status to an article relying on it. This is a difficult question: usually OTRS is used to permit people to correct facts about themselves, and to donate copyright, not more generally to permit sourcing from emails. I've never seen such a request on OTRS., but I work there only a little. I would want to check how often this has been used. I suggest that you move this question to either the RS or BLP noticeboards. I think a general opinion is needed. It's not a question for the OTRS volunteers primarily but the community. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Duly copied to WP:BLPN. Much appreciated. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

'

My PROD on Andrea Miller

I foolishly missed applying a concern, though I did state my concern when notifying page creator. I prodded following this edit which to my eyes represented evidence of possible COI with both articles. The legal threat was briefly discussed here. For a few minutes this morning, I pondered AfD as arguably promotional, but employing the reasonable suggestions at BEFORE, I discovered sufficient independent sources to satisfy BIO and IRS. That said, I don't feel an obligation to expand or improve every article I come across, so I didn't apply found sources. It's entirely possible we are dealing with COI, and if so I'd rather not support such activity when COI users haven't played it straight, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said the article should be kept; i merely removed the prod tag because you did not give a reason. I had not investigated further, but I added a tag for what I consider another basic problem, that it's essentially a press release. Another editor has since removed the bulk of the material as unsourced; I'm not sure they were correct on that, as possibly the sources for Tango Magazine covered it--and the material removed omitted that rather basic link. I too don't feel an obligation to expand or improve every article I come across: I cannot work on everything I see any more than any other one person can, and I try to help what what I think is the most important material for the encyclopedia and would benefit the most from the help I can give it. (personally I like to work on material that is COI, but would be a decent article with a little neutral attention, but that's just my own choice; I sometimes like to show as an example what can be achieved on the sort of subjects that attract COI if the work is done properly). If I think an article is too ridden with promotionalism or other problems to be worth working on, I do not work on it, but, but if I do go to the trouble of looking for sources, I add them, even if I am then going to AfD the material--as a help for other editors who might want to work on it. As for the article, both the one him, and the article on the magazine, both are in my opinion borderline, and the virtue of AfD is that its a place for general attention and a community judgment. I shall accordingly nominate the two of them. Will you help us decide, by adding the sources you found? DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Thanks for your comments. BusterD (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

For me, the existing LA Times cite and the Business Week source I added push this subject well past the bar for notability and verifiability. The Direct Marketing News piece backs the first two up. I also tend to view the CRJ work as meeting IRS, but since she graduated CBS, there's some tangential connection which prevents me characterizing it as independent. The rest of the stuff just fills in gaps. To my view, this isn't even close. BusterD (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Investigative Newsource help

Hello, DGG... thank for your input on the Investigative Newsource page. I have cleaned up some minor formatting errors and am now looking at the formatting guidelines page for further information. I am new to formatting, so I will definitely ask for assistance if I hit a hurdle. Also, working on getting third-party information to increase the verifiability of the page. Again, thank you for your help :) Coconnel51 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD Nominations

Hey, thanks again for pointing those things out, I still have got couple of questions, is there anyway we can get in touch Live ?? any IRC channel or gtalk or facebook or anything ?? Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

let's try email, at least first. You can email me from the link in the toolbox on the left. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I did read WP:CSD and got some idea cleared about few things, also wanted to ask you about these SkinnyGuyy, Nicholas_Crosby,Victor_Gurley_Jr and Sunil_Hirani. Are the CSD nominations for these alright or some thing should still be changed ?? Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot judge Skinny Guy. The assertion he received airplay is possibly a good faith statement of importance, but I don't know how credible it is. I have too little understanding of the subject to tell, and so I leave it to other admins to take responsibility for either deleting or de-speedying articles like this. Nicholas Crosby is a classic A7, there is no credible assertion of importance--but it was tagged G11, which does not really apply very closely--the subject just wants to express his own sense of his own importance. Many people confuse us with Facebook, and don't realize we're an encyclopedia, and this needs to be explained to them. I deleted the article and shall leave a note. Victor Gurley Jr. is interesting: the claim was that "Gurley Jr. had the potential to be a superstar athlete but was plauged by a season ending knee injury, which lead to the end of his career as a college football player" and the article was submitted by his college's athletic department. I do not think any competent PR staff can really believe that this is enough for an encyclopedia. I will need to follow up to make sure there are no other such articles from that source. If it had talked instead about a possible brilliant high school career, I would have considered it a credible claim, though not enough to meet actual notability. Possibly he was, but the article did not say so and the likelihood of an acceptable article is too small to be worth the checking. Sunil Hirani was tagged as G11, but I declined to delete it, and said "factual, not entirely promotional, rewritable by normal editing if he is notable, which is possible. If doubted, send to AfD" He's given as head of a $635 million company, which might well be notable. The article had a ref. from Crain's Under 40, which is a decent 3rd party source, though a little based on press releases and only partial proof of notability. The article simply described his career in purely factual neutral language. It was written somewhat in the style of a press release, using his full name too often, but that is easily fixable. If it had described without any specifics his superlative merits, but no actual facts, it would have met G11, because that would take total rewriting, not normal editing.

So you see that each one of these is worth some thought and some comment. Speedy is for what is incontestable, but almost always it takes a little consideration before deciding that. With experience it's possible to make a pretty accurate guess, and after ten thousand of these I can usually quickly figure it out--but there's always some reasoning that I can explain, and likewise any admin should be able to--we must be able to explain, because the contributors of these articles often question us, and we must at least convince them we're not wholly irrational or prejudiced, unlike what they often think.

The way I personally think of A7 is that the importance or significance referred to in A7 is basically any importance that any one in good faith would think makes the subject suitable for an encyclopedia--what I often call " encyclopedic importance". For example, to say someone is mayor of a small village is a good faith claim, and does not qualify for A7, but for prod--the new editor is simply not aware that we do not consider it sufficient. The claim that the subject is the best student in his junior high school is not an adequate claim--everyone even at that age ought to know that no possible encyclopedia would include junior high school valedictorians (& actually it seems most such articles are submitted by the parents, who certainly ought to know.) There are some admins who consider credible some assertions that I do not, and vice-versa, but this rarely causes actual problems because almost always such borderline cases would inevitably be deleted. Sometimes, of course, I and all other admins who are at all active here do make mistakes in both directions, and when asked, we correct them. Sometimes an admin has idiosyncratic views. If it starts affecting articles that might actually make it, it will be explained to them at deletion review, and they almost always understand after a few reversals.

G11, promotional, is trickier, because what would constitute fundamental rewriting is hard to say. I will sometimes go beyond that if I think the subject worth the trouble, but nobody is expected to. However, if it can be cured by simple deletion or stubbification, then it's not a speedy. Admins differ greatly in how they interpret this, and I would only rarely say that someone who made the opposite decision as I was definitely wrong. Occasionally I'll even rewrite copyvio from scratch if I think the subject is really important, but that takes serious work--if I see one and do not want to do the work, or do not have time to, then it must be deleted. Not all that many admins do that, but I enjoy actually writing once in a while. If I think the subject has potential, I'll explain to the contributor what they would need to do, and suggest they try again--and I hope any good admin would do so also, not just do the deletion. Sometimes the person who placed the tag explains well enough, beyond the over-general and rather useless advice in the standard tags, but I'll often add my confirmation, to reinforce the message. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess its time now to delete Hayagriva_Madhava_Temple since it clearly violates WP:G12 also no one is editing that page since its creation. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate your eyes on this one

Something about Relaxation Through Poetry is making my antennae twitch. Reads like a semi-promotional article but is not overtly promoting any particular company, although there is a rather spurious ref quoting a "counselor" in the last section. The article creator (a new SPA) has seeded links to his article into a range of Poetry related articles. It's inoffensive but feels "wrong" to me. I could send it to AfD but thought I would consult you first. Any thoughts?--CharlieDelta (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

it might be a psychological services company, but my thought was promotion for a book. However, I cannot find anything likely for either. Most PR from professional sources is better written. Note the use of a eye-catching, but unrelated, illustration. I think it's an essay, possibly a school essay--I've AGF, & queried the author for specific sources. I see we have no article on poetry therapy, the closest actual subject; I've made it a redirect to bibliotherapy. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Adam Schuck and Davina Reichman - another editor requied please

Hi DGG,

Even though ConcernedVancouverite states that they are a "concerned Vancouver citizen with a strong interest in local politics.", he instits on editing the article Adam Schuck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Schuck and the article Davina Reichman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davina_Reichman.

Please assist me in getting another opinion.

Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

you will get opinions for Schuck at the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Schuck. I'll look at the Reichman article. The best thing to do with challenged articles is to add references; I see you've been trying to do so. CV is an experienced editor, though we do not always agree. I cannot see why anyone who lives in a city and is interested in local politics should be disqualified from editing other things also. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Afrika Reich

Hi there, for The Afrika Reich novel, I think it will be good to have a background section. The Fatherland article has an extensive background section. Should we have one for the Afrika Reich. Have you read the book? I haven't been able to get a copy myself. If you have, would you be able to expand on the plot summary please? Andykatib 02:44, 26th September 2011 (UTC)

what I think you mean, it would be good if the plot summary covered not just the introduction of the book, but gave a fuller idea of what subsequently happens. True, but the section I removed called background was, however, a detailed description of the political arrangement in this alternate-history novel. I don't know the plot of the book, but I do know that section was inappropriate detail and unbalanced the article, I leave it to someone who knows the book to write a better summary. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

request to create or add back a deleted page (with modifications)

Hello there, This is my first time using a talk page, so I hope I am doing this correctly. I just signed up with a new account. I work for a hospital listed here on Wikipedia and its page was deleted a couple years ago for "blatent advertising." Other hospitals in our state (California) and county (Butte) are listed so it seemed appropriate that we should also have information here. We are not a hospital system, just a single hospital and we're non profit and have been here for 100 years. I would be happy to edit the original page to make it more factual/historical (and remove anything that seems biased or like a COI) or create a new, pared down page. Would this be possible?

Thank you! EMC1913 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)EMC1913

I shall take a look at the article, and say something specific on your talk page, but remember that Wikipedia is not a directory, and we do not consider that anyone is entitled to an article. It's a question not of intrinsic importance, but whether the hospital has been written about in 3rd party independent reliable sources, After that, it's the need for an encyclopedia article being not about what you want to say to the public, but what someone in the public who has heard about the hospital in a general context might want to know; the article must not be directed primarily to prospective patients or donors--that's what we mean by promotional. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag removals

Hi DGG... perhaps I'm being overly sensitive but:

1. "I and other admins" must be untrue since that suggests three or more removals, when I only placed two speedy deletion tags.
2. I have read WP:CSD on several occasions and have re-read it now. While it mentions the criteria for speedy deletion, it doesn't mention the criteria for tagging something as SD. There is a short outline of what to tag as such on WP:NPP but does not mention any specific procedures. In particular, it does not state that it is required "that when you do place a speedy or other deletion tag, you indicate this in the article summary." However, I will do so in the future.
3. "president of a major company" - there is no article for that company on WP and I was also unable to find any reference to it via a major search engine.

On the other hand, I accept that being head of a major bureau of a major newspaper is clearly indication of importance and I was hasty in marking that article for speedy deletion.

New page patrolling is not the most interesting part of editing on WP - although occasionally I learn something interesting from new articles - but it is absolutely necessary. The tone of your note is a little abrasive, as though I'm trying to damage your website. Perhaps a little encouragement for people doing thankless tasks might not go amiss.

Incidentally, I'm never sure whether to respond to a comment on my talk page directly after the comment or on the commenter's own talk. Which is best?

FunkyCanute (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:CSD, section 1, 2nd paragraph.

"Immediately following each criterion below is a list of templates used to mark pages or media file for speedy deletion under the criterion being used. In order to alert administrators of the nomination, place the relevant speedy deletion template at the top of the page or media file you are nominating (within <noinclude>…</noinclude> if nominating a Template: page). Please be sure to supply an edit summary that mentions that the page is being nominated for speedy deletion. All of the speedy deletion templates are named as "db-X" with "db" standing for "delete because". A list of the "db-X" templates can be found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Deletion templates."

I added the boldface., Perhaps we should make it more prominent in the text, and say it on Deletion Policy elsewhere. I understand "be sure to" as meaning "it is required to". That wording can if necessary be clarified. And yes, it's a problem all over Wikipedia finding procedures and policies because they are spread out in multiple places.

I don't own speedy. No one admin does most of it. Discussions about it go on WT:Speedy, where you will see the general trend is towards making the requirements narrower, with which I heartily agree. An article wrongly deleted at a speedy can in principle be restored, but it almost always costs us both the article and the editor. Someone else may eventually write the article, but an editor who has a bad experience here will discourage others from even starting. An article not immediately deleted by speedy, will be deleted or fixed by prod or AfD, and if kept by these processes by chance or error, will have attracted enough visibility that someone will get back to it.

NPP is interesting, but difficult. The job of NPP is not just to remove junk, but to remove hopeless junk, nominate the dubious for prod or AfD, tag everything that needs fixing later, and explain clearly and personally to new editors who show any signs of becoming useful what they ought to be doing--not just posting the standard messages, which are over-detailed and non-specific. How quick one can go depends on what one works on. I can do one a minute if it's stuff that I don't have to write personalized messages for or carefully check contribution histories, or confirm in google, but anything else takes longer. I do a little sometimes at the end of the day to keep in touch with the incoming stream, and I've learned to do only a few at a time because otherwise the amount of trash inclines me to start deleting too much. I normally tag, not immediately delete, & I think it should be the rule for admins, but since it still isn't I do sometimes just remove. But normally I find problems in patrolling by catching the incorrect deletion tags. I became an admin quite specifically to do this, so I could check on what had been deleted also, as well as dispose of somethings quickly.

I think my message was terse, but neither rude nor condescending. Part of the terseness was due to just the effect I mentioned above in patrolling--I had previously dealt with a person doing considerably more errors, and it affected the way I was thinking. And I was influenced by the nuisance of having to check everything you edited to see the ones that were deletion tags, because of the lack of edit summaries. Anyone else who sees this is welcome to check & correct me on this.

as for the articles, I probably should have said, head of a possibly major company, going by reported size. "possibly" is enough to defeat speedy. And true, I should have said me and another admin. Usually when I comment it's with >2, so I just routinely typed it. It's not a prebuilt message, but my brain can work a little too much on internal automatic pilot without outside devices to accentuate it.

I probably should routinely say to answer on my talk page. Like many who have been here a while, my watchlist is too long to be useful. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for response. Appreciate the clarifications. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Military Families Speak Out

hello my name is Brendan and i am attending SCSU, I need a mentor and i would be very appreciative if you could help me in this arena. i am writing about Military Families Speak Out, a program dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers families. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyb2 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I gather the assignment is improving the existing article, which is much too promotional and does not have a NPOV. I've made some specific criticisms of it on the article talk p. Talk:Military Families Speak Out. If the question is how to proceed, I would first practice basic editing skills by removing words and phrases which do not belong or need to be replaced with more objective language. Then, I would look for references and incorporate them. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

Fine, I'm always happy to defer to other opinions. I tend to tag as OR when it's obviously copied, but I can' see where from Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That explains it, but at least it should be called what it is -- Perhaps Copyright: and saying source unclear--it's still not a/c the rules, but it at least says what you're doing. But I don't see how to justify it on one person's opinion--you marked it on some articles that had already been prodded, but the prod would have dealt with them, and removing copyright from unknown source isn't an emergency like it is sometimes said copyvio from a known source is. . Perhaps we should have a WT:CSD discussion, on whether, for example, to rely on internal formatting for copyvio. And there's WP:COPYRIGHT PROBLEMS, which I admit I rarely use. DGG ( talk ) 14:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio tag

Hi DGG, please take a look at this diff [11] where the article creator clearly states that the article is a copyvio of his book. I was unclear how to list that in the copyvio speedy tag, but posted it on the discussion page, which I would have hoped you would have read before dismissing the speedy. Please take a look before dismissing it so quickly. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

see my note there; the easiest way to place such a speedy tag is to either use the tag manually, or write in a description when Twinkle asks for the link, or leave it blank in twinkle & add in manually. I did miss seeing this because I took the tag at face value as having tagged an article as copyvio of itself. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining why you missed it, and how it may have been better to tag it. As a side note, I see you did a test of the speedy tag on the talk page of that article, and as a result of that you left an automated G12 speedy notification on the editor's talk page regarding the talk page of the article. I imagine you may not have wanted to do that since you removed your speedy on the article talk page quickly calling it a test, but the message is still there on the editor's talk page. I don't want to remove it as you may have some other reason you have put it there, but I thought I should draw you attention to it here: [12] in case you want to remove it (which seems the right thing to do considering your series of edits). If you think it is appropriate to have it there, I'd be curious to know your logic so I can understand your actions regarding that speedy more clearly. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I was testing whether one could indeed omit enter a url when using twinkle. I cut corners- I should have made a test article not used a real one. I'll of course remove it from the user talk p. I slipped up there also. When enough different things are being done to an article, I sometimes do get confused and trip over my own tail--I therefore, for example, have learned not to handle complicated merges. This is an exceptional problem article in several ways: first ,it does not quite meet the requirements of any speedy category. However, it is clearly hopelessly unsatisfactory for several reasons: copypaste, OR , essay, self-promotion, lack of 3rd party sources. Third, it's not intrinsically worth much fuss over, but here we are doing it. Looking back, I might have done better to let the original speedy ride, but I hate using IAR for speedies. If he cannot be convinced to withdraw the article, as I said, either he lets the prod run or we go to AfD for SNOW, but if one thing isn't appropriate, it's further discussion of procedure over something that isn't worth it. Perhaps the best thing to do with things like this is to do an AfD initially, asking for snow, with the explicit reason of getting rid of it. Jiggling the speedy rules to fit this one case will cause too many errors for future articles. CV, have you ever felt yourself in a situation where nothing that possibly could be done is satisfactory? DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. I do think either the copyvio speedy or a snow AfD would have both been fine. But the Prod will work. I agree with you, no reason to waste more of our time on it. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewish template vote

Hi DGG: Your wise input would be greatly appreciated at these two votes about the same thing, see: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 25#Template:Jews and Judaism category tree and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 25#Category:Categories of Jews and Judaism category tree. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have emailed you. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Update on courses and ambassador needs

Hello, Ambassadors!

I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.

On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.

Courses looking for Online Ambassadors

Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!

Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:

• Sociology of Poverty
• Architectural Design
• Introduction to Educational Psychology
• Intro to Mass Communication
• Psychology Seminar
• Theories of the State
• Advanced Media Studies

Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:

• Housing and Social Policy
• Anthropology, Wikipedia, and the Media
• History & Systems
• Horror Cinema
• Digital Media... just bits in a box
• Composition I
• Telecommunications Management
• Training Systems
• Stigma: Culture, Deviance, Identity
• Art and Terrorism
• Political Violence and Insurgency

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Femi Folorunsho

I see that you've undeleted the article. Though you gave a correct reason for your action, it appears that the creator has edited it after undeletion, and a comment I left on the talk page for the creator to see hasn't been taken into account. Could you undelete the talk page as well? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted. We could consider the title just an error--he naïvely put his name at the head of the paper. If the content were usable under any title I would have moved it to that title. But of course the contents is too unencyclopedic to be rewritable--I suppose I might delete it as a partial & inferior duplicate of Marriage if he does not understand? See if you can persuade him to withdraw it. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. This user seems knowledgeable, yet his contributions so far suggest that he's trying to make a name for himself and sell books he wrote. I believe we could have a great contributor once the WP:COI issues are ironed out. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Autobio

We have an AFD of Adam Taubitz, started as an autobio. Normally I'd have speedy tagged it but actually there appears to evidence he meets requirements. Your thoughts please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

doesn't matter who started it, since any person with a chair in the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra is notable, and he's head of the section. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP Youtube personalities

Hey, am back with query once again, are youtube personalities notable enough to get on WP ? Please help me out over here GloZell_Green and check this message. Thanks. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

it depends , as always, on 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. Almost always all material about them is on the internet in the form of blogs of some sort; the question is then what sort of blogs count as reliable for the purposes of notability. In the past, Wikipedia has been notably restrictive in this, but as more and more other responsible sources appear in this format, things are changing. There's a subsidiary question in each particular case of whether the coverage in the references is substantial, but that's essentially the same question as with references in any media, and amounts to a question of judgement. Such judgements can depend not on the merits but on what one wishes to prove, since often each position can be justified. The prevailing attitude, which to some measure I share, is extreme skepticism. I summarize it by saying that for someone to be notable, they have to have actually done something notable -- in the ordinary meaning of the word.

but this case is simple with respect to notability: the deleted article on Green had no third party sources whatsoever. I doubt anyone who understands Wikipedia would support it at an AfD unless better sources could be found. However, it was deleted via A7, and the criterion for A7 is not notability, nor is it whether the article would be accepted into Wikipedia, but some reasonable indication or claim of importance. The question is whether the claims there are such. I consider them borderline. The person certainly thinks what they've done is important. I do not, but I can recognize that a person might think so in good faith. Myself, I might or might not have A7'd. Given that I know I have a prejudice against such careers, I might have passed on it & let some other admin decide. In any case, I have a standard practice for a questioned A7 speedy like this: first I give the fairest advice I can, which in this case is that without real sources it will surely be rejected in its present form, so it would be best to submit it again once there are sources; and then, if the person still wants me to, I undelete and send it to AfD (they rarely do, if I give the advice clearly enough). It's easier than arguing. If I was right, it'll be deleted, and there will be grounds for a G4 in case of the almost inevitable re-creation. (The only problem is that sometimes it might not be a good faith article, in which case the subject deserves to be protected against the negative comments at AfD. That's not the case here--they want the publicity. The previous speedy of a much sketchier version was deleted on A7 and G11, something I also do a good deal. I might have done that here.)

The case is not helped , of course, by the comparison that's made to Jenna Marbles, which has several good third party sources, and would almost certainly pass AfD. When someone says , but X has an article, there are three possibilities. Most commonly, X is famous, and then almost always the proposed subject is hopelessly non-notable & the claim is absurd—naïve but well-meaning editors argue this a lot, often for self-published authors. Also common, is that X is in fact borderline notable at best, and quite possibly should be deleted also—spammers often use this argument & there's an obvious course to follow, which usually stops their questioning, though it will hardly satisfy them. But, rarely, it is a reasonable protest: either we are generally inconsistent in the area involved, in which case it should go to AfD, to take its chances in the coin toss, or there actually was an error in evaluating X. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Favour

I'm too preoccupied with RL at the moment. Please can you look at this and do the necessary? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

i gather you are asking me to change the close to non-consensus, and make the necessary adjustments. I'll do that, unless you say otherwise. Then anyone who is not satisfied, including you if you ever want to, can AfD again in a reasonable time. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)