User talk:DGG/Archive 58 Nov. 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

Barbette Spaeth

I wonder if Barbette Spaeth, associate professor of classics at William and Mary College, is notable enough for inclusion per WP:PROF. I have created a user sandbox space for a potential article. Her name links to dozens of WP articles. Her treatise on Ceres has been cited copiously. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

borderline: it's her only book, and was based on her doctoral thesis. , However, she does seem a specialist on that particular subject. There are probably multiple reviews of her book, which would help. If any of them specifically called her an expert it would surely help. . DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, exactly the input I needed. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wojciech Nawrocki

FYI, since you were involved in removing the prod on it in the recent past. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The making of stubs should be actively encouraged, The principles are building the web, and that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia --even incomplete information is useful, as long as it is verifiable. (I would not go so far as to say that is must be actually required, since we are all volunteers. I myself make them when occasion offers, though it is not what choose to primarily do--though I sometimes think I should be doing otherwise, and making as many as possible on people whom I know to be notable where I have the sources., such as the many thousands of members of national academies who do not yet have articles. If I did not have to patrol speedy and prod to rescue new editors from unwarranted deletions of fixable articles, I would do this.)

I do not consider it needs discussion. (though I nonetheless did join the discussion) Anyone opposed to it does not believe in the principle of a comprehensive encyclopedia & we are therefore not working on the same project. I might want to persuade them to work on Wikipedia rather than on their own concept of what we should instead be doing, but I know it to be hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Barica Marentič Požarnik

She is a retired (emer.?) Slovenian professor, whom I think passes WP:PROFESSOR, but not editors agree with this new article. After having you wikislap me a couple of times over the years at AFD for professors (deservedly, I might add), I've learned a little about the criteria. Her publications have been cited over 100 times, (106 hits for her name in quotes at scholar.google.com but it isn't in English, and even if it was, I'm not an academic so it is a bit over my head. This looks right up your alley. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

unfortunately, the page is an exact copy of her English cv at http://baricamarentic.wordpress.com/cv/english/ , so I had to delete it as a copyvio. I willl make some suggestions for what would be needed to rewrite it at User talk:Qrof. The books are more likely to prove notability than the articles. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I figured since she had been cited so many times, and had such a long career, there had to be some notability there. I didn't think to check for copy vio, guess I learned something today. Thanks for following up. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

anything written in a format that might be a CV is worth checking for copyvio, because most of the time it is, and for academics, they are almost always online. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Up for deletion, again.

Social impact of thong underwear is up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social impact of thong underwear) again. Will you take a look? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Without specific reference to anyone, there can be discomfort with discussion of sexual topics in a formal setting, even by those who are perfectly comfortable with such material in other settings. It;s an understandable attitude, but not appropriate here. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ben Federman article

Hi DGG, thanks so much for your advice on the Ben Federman article. I always appreciate feedback that helps me improve my editing. If you don't mind, I had a few questions.

Question about streamlining

Per your advice, I tried to cut any facts that seemed both off topic and positive. I also tried to cut quotes so it wouldn't seem like it was giving undue weight to the positive. But I'll admit, I'm not so great at streamlining intuitively, which makes your advice about the quotes doubly helpful. My method of contributing usually involves binge research and going crazy with citations. Sometimes I feel I verge on adding too much of what I've discovered, and then get too attached to a first draft to really know what to cut out.

I'm sure you're busy and so I hate to ask, but I could I lure you into returning to the page to remove any information that you feel is extraneous? It would give me a chance to analyze your instinct for inclusion, and hopefully help me learn something I can apply to my future contributions.

Basically when writing a page for an entrepreneur type, I'm not sure where to draw the line on company details. Part of my brain argues that it helps the reader understand why the person is notable, while the other part of my brain argues it seems only tangentially related. For a specific example, I'm not sure if the quote in the Octagon commerce section that says "Instead of using third-party advertising on his sites...rely solely on viral publicity" is too off topic for a biography or not.)

Request for review

After your tags I tried to improve the page as best I could, and am proud to say I think it meets all the Wikipedia guidelines at least I'm aware of (proper third-party citations, neutral and original wording, all standard sections, infobox, proper lead, etc.)

However, I don't feel comfortable removing the tags myself because they are largely a critique of my contributions. Do you mind if I ask; could you be the page's angel of sorts and review the entry again? I was hoping you could either find it satisfactory and remove the tags, could make the changes you think will bring it up to par, or could let me know what else you think needs to be done. It's pretty complete already, so I doubt it would take long.

At some point, my goal on Wikipedia is to have an article nominated to "good status," so I tried to add the page with that in mind. Having an administrator look it over and actually give it a critical, constructive edit would make me so very happy.

Head ups, I suppose I do have a bias on this topic; I use Federman's website regularly, and I thought he seemed like a neat guy when I was doing research (being a tepid fan counts as a sort of bias, right?). But my goal is honestly to have it 100% neutral, so anything I can do to get it there, I'll do in a heartbeat.

Thanks! Richardo42 (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

One thing you could do to make it look less promotional, is to remove most of the "Friedman" and replace it with "he" or "his"

Another thing, is to look at each sentence and see if there are any words you can eliminate without affecting the meaning. : e.g. replace "Federman is known for frequently interacting with customers via ..." with "He interacts with customers on ..." or, at age 18" with "at 18"

A more general problem is the discussion of what he only plans to do. I read such statements as promotional.

Since he's a businessman, perhaps a different picture would be appropriate: the picture should relate to his primary activity, which is not rowing a boat.

And if you're looking for a GA, you might have more success with his brother Eliyahu Federman, who has a public career. His picture is, btw, an example of what I mean by an appropriate picture: informal, but showing him doing what he's known for. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

After you've done these, I'll take another look. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I went ahead and tried to incorporate what you said. I think it did tone it down a lot. I figure I'll hold off on a picture until I can find one more appropriate. I'll probably consider the brother as my next pet project, his activism seems interesting.

Ben Federman (Revision history / previous edit) Richardo42 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi DGG, hope you had a good weekend. Sorry to prod, but by chance do you have a minute to look over the new Federman update? Richardo42 (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll get there today. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It needed some cutting. If you don't see the purpose of my cuts, ask me. I may do some more--it still sounds too much like an inspirational biography. But, looking at it, you might as well put back the picture. I give no guarantee the article will stay in Wikipedia, of course; I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but anyone else can & I won't be the one who decides. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, understood. I looked through the changes and see why you did each one; I agree with them. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand. While I'm not quite sure how to scrub out the facts to seem less inspirational, I guess if I find some well-sourced dirt on him I'll add a controversy section or something. I'll keep my eyes open. At some point I'd still like to try this one for GA, so I hope you don't mind if I removed the maintenance tags. Now that you've given it your knowing eye, I feel pretty confident it's squeaky awesome :D Richardo42 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(also, I hope you don't mind if I archive this conversation on my talk page as well - but I'll consider this the place for conversation) 01:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

it's not a question of adding negative information, but of general tone. The one specific sentence I have remaining doubts about is the Facebook page; this is pretty standard for many businesses. But it's ok to remove the tags. Now, I have no actual authority here on smatters of content beyond that of any other editor, and if anyone is unhappy with the result, they can add the tags back--if they do, please don't remove them unilaterally. They can also make what changes they see fit, and if they do , consider whether they might have merit. It's hard to judge one's own work, and that also applies to my ability to judge the adequacy of my editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Guide to information sources

This seems a bit strange to me. The one reference that I can access does not even mention the term "Guide to information sources". Perhaps it should be moved or redirected to a more suitable article? --Crusio (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

it's an appropriate article; I'm not sure there is a really standard term. The one I used in teaching was guides to the literature. The most common beginning words of the titles of such books is however, A guide to information sources in (subject), In any case, it can be much expanded, and I will do so: I know of over a hundred, many in multiple editions. Perhaps it should be List of guides to information sources, because dozens of them are notable individually--there will be substantial reviews for most of them; or perhaps not, because there are some that should be included but may not be, and, more important, I don't immediately want to write all the articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Avoiding confrontation on two articles.

I have a favor to ask, if you can, please look at two articles, Roc Nation singles discography and Roc Nation albums discography. I have several concerns about the articles, but in particular, the article creator has created text boxes with colors matching the logo of the company, and when I have attempted to discuss this with the individual, it is easy to see they are rapidly becoming confrontational (talk pages). Dealing with controntational people is not something I am good at. The editor in question, User:MarkMysoe has only been here a month (although he has been quite busy) so may not be as familiar with MOS issues. It's obvious the guy wants to contribute and most of his work is quite good (refs, etc), but it would be more helpful if he did so in a consistent way. Again, I'm aware that I can appear confrontational at times, so this would best be handled by someone like yourself with a more balanced way of expressing themselves. If you can, please do. If you would rather not, I understand. Just let me know and I will ask another admin. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

if I need to re-visit, let me know. I consider it pure promotionalism, which we do not tolerate. DGG ( talk ) 12:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. I appreciate you taking the time. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Follow up issue - He has come around on the articles (and I believe in acting in good faith), and has done some of the work (the info box is still red and black), but now he believes that the template can still be in the black and red because other templates also use bold colors. (I changed, he reverted, I've left it alone.) I'm not an expert on WP:ACCESS or promotional colors, etc. Your input on the input boxes and the template would be helpful. WP:ACCESS is the primary policy issue, but I agree with you that it appears to be promotional when you do that, for a team or a company. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

we standardize template colors. I will revert. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted File Request

Dear DGG,

Thank you for your advice regarding the deletion of my submission, "Mathew D. McCubbins." I would like to request that the deletion be returned to my personal userspace so that I may revise and improve it along the guidelines you have suggested.

Andrea.colleen.francis (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)andrea.colleen.francis

Dear DGG,

I have resubmitted the revised article entitled "Mathew D. McCubbins" for your review with guidelines given. Thank you for the advice. Andrea.colleen.francis (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Andrea.colleen.francis

Clarence Ridgeby Greathouse

What we ought to be doing is completely rewriting all the old article content taken from all the pre-1923 PD sources--the old Brittanica and Catholic Ency and Jewish Ency the worst; the old DNB is a little better, depending on when the article was written. The tone is generally unsuitable and the facts and interpretation often unreliable. So I freely say, though I've almost never taken a hand in it myself.

In this case, the two attribution statements gave it away, for they were quite frank about it. I would probably have deleted it had I not noticed them, without investigation. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have enough information to judge your assessment of the reliability of those old 19th and early 20th century encyclopedias, but since I know that you are a librarian, I will defer to your expertise. That being said, I think that we should keep articles referenced only to those sources, because there is a clear potential to expand and improve these articles. I spent some time a year or so ago working on an article about a real 19th century "character", Harry Yount. It took a lot of in-depth online searches, refining my search terms and developing techniques to separate the wheat from the chaff. But I was able to uncover lots of reliable source material in a week or two of effort. I think the same can be said of an article like this one. An editor could take this on as a personal project, as I did with Mr. Yount, and a much better article could result. If we delete the article, the chances for that outcome are greatly reduced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

of course we should keep them--but we should rewrite them with modern sources added--just as you did. That one of these encyclopedias has an article is considered not just as an indication, but a definitive proof of notability , because we include everything in other general encyclopedias. It's just that they is essentially no subject whatsoever where additional knowledge, and very often more accurate knowledge, is not available--just as you found in the one you worked on. You're doing what we should all of us be doing. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I'll try to be sharper about catching such attributions in the future. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Spammer

There is a guy who keeps marking the page i made about a movie editor as not an important person for deletion. In the source it links to the IMDB page for the person. Any idea how to go about fighting this? Alan McCurdy is the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaglesX63 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

discuss it at the .AfD DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at User talk:DGG/Archive 58 Nov. 2011.
Message added 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarence Ridgeby Greathouse

Hey! I saw you declined the G12 at this article. I'm confused about the false positive and don't want to make the mistake again. I checked around for any kind of licensing before nominating but don't see anything besides, "Copyright of original material remains with greathousecousins.com and the contributors." found here. Any guidance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually very simple: this article is based on the text of an article published by Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, which was issued between 1887 and 1901. Some family members can come along later and put the information on a family website, and that is fine. They can copyright their copyrighted family website, but that copyright does not apply to material originally published in the United States before 1923. DGG, let us know if I've got anything wrong here. Hope this helps. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

right. They copied their material from the 19th century Appleton's American Biography (and in fact attributed it at the bottom of their page). Our article was also copied from Appleton's, and says it was, and is in the characteristic style of that old fashioned and not very reliable work. So in a sense they were telling the truth: they own the copyright for whatever material on their page is original. But this part isn't. It's absolutely routine for people to place a general copyright notice in such cases, or even in cases where they add nothing original of their own at all. there is, oddly, no penalty for even deliberately claiming copyright in what is in the public domain in the hope that someone will think they need to pay you for it. In a slightly different situation, museums do that all the time when the post illustrations on the web, even when they have no copyright in the underlying work, and, in US law at least, no copyright in the reproduction (because faithful reproductions of flat art are not subject to US copyright).

What we ought to be doing is completely rewriting all the old article content taken from all the pre-1923 PD sources--the old Brittanica and Catholic Ency and Jewish Ency the worst; the old DNB is a little better, depending on when the article was written. The tone is generally unsuitable and the facts and interpretation often unreliable. So I freely say, though I've almost never taken a hand in it myself.

In this case, the two attribution statements gave it away, for they were quite frank about it. I would probably have deleted it had I not noticed them, without investigation. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have enough information to judge your assessment of the reliability of those old 19th and early 20th century encyclopedias, but since I know that you are a librarian, I will defer to your expertise. That being said, I think that we should keep articles referenced only to those sources, because there is a clear potential to expand and improve these articles. I spent some time a year or so ago working on an article about a real 19th century "character", Harry Yount. It took a lot of in-depth online searches, refining my search terms and developing techniques to separate the wheat from the chaff. But I was able to uncover lots of reliable source material in a week or two of effort. I think the same can be said of an article like this one. An editor could take this on as a personal project, as I did with Mr. Yount, and a much better article could result. If we delete the article, the chances for that outcome are greatly reduced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

of course we should keep them--but we should rewrite them with modern sources added--just as you did. That one of these encyclopedias has an article is considered not just as an indication, but a definitive proof of notability , because we include everything in other general encyclopedias. It's just that they is essentially no subject whatsoever where additional knowledge, and very often more accurate knowledge, is not available--just as you found in the one you worked on. You're doing what we should all of us be doing. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. I'll try to be sharper about catching such attributions in the future. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's Try This Again

Dear [User:DGG| DGG]],

Thanks for being cool. I thought that a bunch of reference to the Hypnos label, easily one of the top five "ambient music" labels... Hearts of Space, maybe 1-2 more... would be reference enough. That's OK. I'll just copy over refs from the Hypnos page, and more. It's an important indie label, and M. Griffin created it, still runs it, and is the most-released artist on it (which makes sense, since it's his label, after all.)

So I will _improve_ the article. That's reasonable. And I want to do anyway. Can I just have a couple of days respite to get it done? I have a life, and a couple of jobs... make it a couple weeks? Not much in the scheme of things. Unlike Wikipedians, I don't have much time to sit around and get all anal about things, y'know? No offense intended. If it gets deleted, whatever. I can get paid for work; Wikipedia doesn't pay me. So what-ever. — WinkJunior (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left some additional help on your user talk page. It is a little confusing to leave the same message in multiple places. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Harvey Nikolai Keith

Dear sir, I am utterly confused by your reasoning to remove the article on Harvey Nikolai Keith, all the more that there are links even on wikipedia to his work. The biography om IMDB was written by Eric Mittleman -- http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0594167/ an industry veteran who has an extensive profile and is certainly credible. Wether I know him or don't know him, should make absolutely no difference to the validity of the article.

the term hoax is improper and invalid. Harvey Keith has a profile on IMDB and his bio confirms the information, moreover I linked to the publisher which has information on his books. I would also note thatFfr people's whose career began long before the internet age, to expects a slew of links on the internet is impossible. I spent considerable time writing this first article, as Harvey deserves a profile here- his movie Mondo New York has it's own page, yet he doesn't. very logical you'll agree.

It would have been nice to receive a head's up before erasing what was hours worth of work for me. AnatoliusTrigger (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you have reinserted the article. I have sent it to our articles for deletion process, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey Nikolai Keith where you will be welcome to comment, and some other administrator will judge. I probably should not have simply said hoax, for which I apologize, but the fact is, I could verify very little of what was in the IMdB biography. Everything I can find otherwise says there is such a person as the director of the films. The bio there refers to Mondo New York as having a review in Variety, but I can not find it. I can find no evidence whatsoever for his authorship of one of the two novels,"The Eagle and the Sword "; there is a novel by that title published in 1997: it was written by another person.A. A. Attanasio and published by Harper. Are you asserting that this is the same person? The second novel "the Tsar's Engraver" is published by what appears to be a vanity publisher, Firefall Media-- none of the books published under that imprint is in more than 6 libraries--most are not even in worldcat. This book, though published in 2010, is in a total of only one library according to worldcat [1]. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Railway switching networks

Nominated @ AfD. Archolman User talk:Archolman 22:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Request clarification deletion UNSA Maastricht

Dear sir, I would like to ask whether you could provide us with more details as to regards why the page UNSA Maastricht ( United Nations Student Association Maastricht) was deleted. As a non-profit association, responsible for organizing Europe's 2nd largest Model United Nations at university level (among many other acitivities), it seems rather straightforward to us for us to have a page. We do not wish to claim any advertising, but we want to expand the enyclopedia by providing visitors with this information. If the "problem" was centred on the overall tone of the text, please let us review this. If the critique was about the amount of external sources, I believe many other pages lack more and more reliable sources, but still we can improve here. Overall I think we can improve the page a lot for sure, but deleting it by saying we wish to merely advertise ourselves is an unjust assumption. You can DM me via internalrelations@myunsa.org

Love Fungus

Lower priority, but this is a new article, borderline notability, issue is ext. links. The band has an official website, user is arguing that the facebook page is also the official site, adding to the article. I don't want to get in 3RR territory. Am I wrong in saying if they already have an official website, then the FB, Twitter, Myspace links are generally considered spam when used only as external links? Same with putting their link in both the info box and in external links (thus, twice). Talk:Love Fungus is where it is being argued if you care to jump in. I'm just tired of the overly promotional stuff on so many pages, want to be sure I have the right interpretation. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You have the right interpretation, but, frankly, I don't think it matters all that much. Text usually concerns me more, & I removed a sentence. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

“I'd far rather be happy than right any day.” ― Douglas Adams - Point taken, text matters more than one extra link. Tried to source it better, move it from weak to solid sources, not much luck, so will leave alone as a borderline article for now. Thanks again. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Testing those alternate templates you made

Hey, just a heads up we prepared the user warnings you made. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing#Suggestions at the end. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST members update

Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.

Here's what we're up to lately:

• Huggle: There are tests still running in Huggle of level 1 templates, including a new template written by DGG. A full list is available here
• SDPatrolBot: There is a new test running on the talk page messages of SDPatrolBot, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is here.)
• Twinkle: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 1, 2) This test should start this week.
• Shared and dynamic IPs: Maryana's proposal to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests: 1, 2
• XLinkBot: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are being written and help is most welcome.

Thanks for your help and support, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 02:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A tool for you!

Hi DGG! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script:

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName 
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. So long! --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Noel Ashman

Significant content was added to Noel Ashman? Really? The whole article is about 3 short paragraphs.....the old article was about 3 short paragraphs. There is hardly any difference in actual content. All this new one has is a list of sources where Ashman was named. But at least the CSD was denied immediately. Whatever. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It added information about other clubs, at the very least, and additional references. AfD is available to decide the issue . I'm not sure what, if anything, I will say there about actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• The additional "references" that aren't even cited? I'll let someone else nmominated the AfD.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 85

DGG, I'm sorry to bother you if you've already seen this and decided not to comment, but if you have not, I wonder if you'd mind taking a look? Thanks.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and this too, if you have the chance: User_talk:Cardiffchestnut#Papyri— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica

Hello sir!

Thank you for changing the status of the article I made today. I've been adding more sources. Do you maybe have a suggestion as to how many more I should add (i.e. how many are sufficient)?

All the best and thanks again!

Tempo21 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

it's not the number of sources, but their nature. What is needed is not more sources quoting him, but more explicitly 3rd party sources ,that discuss him and his work-- preferably from academic historians or philosophers. Is the book mentioned the only published work? Has anyone referred to it in subsequent work? That's what is needed to show actual notability. The present article was fully enough to pass the weak standard necessary for speedy deletion, but you'll need this sort of material to meet the higher standards of the general guideline, WP:GNG or the one for writers, WP:AUTHOR DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Rich Tosi

Thanks, good tip. I've actually nominated a fair number of copy-vios, but missed this one. The article is back, and tagged as a G12. The editor involved may be worth a further look - he has been regularly creating inappropriate articles and removing speedy deletion tags despite multiple warnings. Seems to be sailing close to a block for disruption? Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words - our messages crossed in the ether, I think. Don't worry, I am not disheartened by any of the talk page stuff. Thanks for the good advise. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

as for that editor, I was about to go there. Your judgment is perfectly right, they indeed do need watching. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for deletion

While trying to take care of some of the files at Category:Publicity photographs with missing fair-use rationale just now, I found this: File:Adanlaserpente.jpg and see that the original uploader seems not to have been notified of the problem. Looking further at the tagging user's contributions, it looks like he/she has been tagging files for deletion for a few days, but not notifying the uploader of the problem.

No idea what the solution is for this, as I know there will be plenty of upset people if the files are deleted and they weren't notified. TIA for any help you can provide. We hope (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead of sending him email, put an object on the person's talk page where others can see it. I find public "reminders" can do wonders. There is currently no requirement that anyone be notified of any deletion: the correct place to argue to make it a requirement is WT:CSD, where , unfortunately, one or two arch-deletionists will object and block consensus-- because, to the extent our procedures have any degree of fairness or equity, it will make their anti=constructive work more difficult.

such people are even more prevalent at discussions of images than they are of articles, which is one of the reasons I do not work on images here.

while we are waiting on such things, notify them yourselves, or even better, fix the deletion rationales. My own view is that any reasonable attempt to fix the rationale justifies removal of the tag. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Was in the middle of a page merge but can't move the page without an admin. Could you please move Jo + Broadway to Swingin' Down Broadway while I start letting people know about the deletion tagging? Thanks again, We hope (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

done; I also updated the image rationale. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

but fwiw, please warn me when what seems like a simple request, like your previous oneat the start of this section , will get me involved in a long-standing discussion ; I will usually check first, but it helps me avoid errors to be specifically told, and also clarifies things for anyone seeing the talk page here or trying to follow things regarding the original dispute. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry--will do in future. Was just amazed at how many were tagged for deletion for one reason or another and no notification for it. I went through a week's worth of contributions for the user looking for files and notified everyone who appeared not to have received deletion notices. AFAIK, all whose photos were tagged are now notified of it. Thanks for moving the page and for putting up with me! :-) We hope (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

May I bother you again about this as the lack of notification continues. We hope (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ileft what I hope is a tactful note. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks-I notified someone who wasn't notified in this round and think there will be notice given from this point on. BTW--I've never seen you be less than tactful. ;-) We hope (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI closures by involved admins

Given your earlier comments about involved admins closing ANI discussions, I wondered if you have any comments on this: [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think his closing it the second time is in any way justifiable. But I will not take the same action twice. There's a very strict rule against wheel-warring, enforced with the same degree of common sense as the laws in The Mikado. True, closing an an/i is not really an admin action, but it's too close to one for my comfort. However, you may not be the best person to carry this further--you are too involved and it will only lead to trouble for you. I left him a comment. If he does not take my advice, undoubtedly someone not previously active in this will notice. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm far too involved to do anything myself (which is rather the point) - I'm glad to see you agree that it was inappropriate though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked for my comment at User talk:EdJohnston#AN/I problem. Looks moot. Let me know on my talk page if there is still an issue. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is moot as the ed. in question reverted. I hope someone else will close it though, as the original AfD has been closed again, in what I consider a very satisfactory manner. DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: speedies

Thank you for your detailed explanation on the differences between A7 and G11. Will help me in future patrolling. Thank you. -EmadIV (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Foster Natural Gas Report

Hello David! I hope you can assist with finding some information concerning the Foster Natural Gas Report. There are two claims which are probably true but needs some sources. The first one is that the Foster Natural Gas Report was previously named Foster Associates Report. The second claim is that it was founded on March 23, 1956 by economist dr. J. Rhoades Foster. Unfortunately there are no online sources on these claims, but I hope you are able to assist with your knowledge on traditional librarian searches. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

that;s trivial, and not really needed, though I'll try to find it. What is actually needed for the article and the AfD is a database review, and that is not as easy to find, though I'll start looking. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We're testing your template :)

Hi DGG,

Just wanted to let you know we're testing your level 1 vandal warning template in Huggle now. First instance here. You can monitor who gets your message by going to the tracking template, {{Z86}} and clicking on "What links here" :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Momofuku Seiōbo

Hi DGG. I was in the middle of a reworking of Momofuku Seiōbo and reference addition when you deleted and protected it. I didn't see any unambiguous promotion in the text. Could you restore the article and undo the protection? Goodvac (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, following further research, I see that this restaurant may not be independently notable and a redirect is proper. Goodvac (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Question..Mohammed Images.

I'm currently involved in this[3], and some rather interesting information just came up.[4] It could be construed to imply that one (without discussing such changes with the community) set up the parameters for their ongoing "crusade" by changing that policy without community discussion on how it applied and how it should be incorporated. I, who may be biased due to his accusations against myself and others (as well as disruptiveness and so on as mentioned in that first link), am leaning towards feeling like after multiple other attempts to remove that content, he's tried "stacking the deck" by a non-communal change to that policy to try again. I'd greatly appreciate your opinion. Do I mention it? Do I go with my gut feelings and push for stricter sanctions because of my interpretations of his possible motives? Do I ignore it? Thanks much, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say to anyone who is involved on this matter that the issue is difficult enough without resorting to discussions of the motivations of editors; nobody should make such comments, and nobody should reply to them. I have my own ideas about possible motivations in some instances , and I have kept them mostly unwritten and most certainly off-wiki. More specifically, when I saw your first posting in the first discussion which you mention, I thought immediately that you were unwise to bring up the matter of religious images specifically in the way you did, whether or not you think it is the underlying motivation of some of the people involved. A few of the replies to you were exceptionally inappropriate; to the extent they might reveal the motivations of those who wrote them they will do so without the need to comment.

With regard to the second discussion, I do not share what I think to be your opinion. As I have said elsewhere, the way to minimize dissension and promote objectivity in even the most difficult of articles is by careful editing. I strongly support the principle of least surprise: it censors nothing, it labels nothing; when our principle of NOT CENSORED unavoidably causes offense, it minimizes the offense without sacrificing encyclopedicity. As anyone following this knows, NOT CENSORED is a fundamental basis for WP that I am not willing to compromise, to the extent I would support a fork if the board were to abandon it, and this is not just talk, for in fact I left Citizendium over this issue. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information which people may use if they choose to, not to force enlightenment upon the unwilling. That people who for whatever reason prefer censorship would prefer this if they cannot have censorship shows its viability as a solution. When I can satisfy those I most disagree with in such a way, I think it very fortunate. There are enough occasions where it is necessary to combat one's ideological enemies, without doing so just to keep the fight going when it is unnecessary. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I erred on the first one, as it didnt portray what I wanted it to. There were about two dozen diffs where the editor pointed out his reasons (no speculation on my part), but that wasn't the reason I brought it up. Somehow that thought lost cohesiveness in posting. It was supposed to show "ok, he's got this reasoning, we suggested use the correct venue, and then again, and again, and again (etc) because we cant simply change policy to suit on this forum (the talk page)". It was supposed to show tendentiousness and disruptiveness as it was obviously something we could do nothing about on that talk page, so "why are you still here repeating what we cant change here - every time we start making progress no less?" I muddled that massively, which I regret, as it just stirred the pot. As for the rest of that particular issue, the rest of us seem to be working along on it relatively decently. Now that the distraction is lessened. We still have points of disagreement and such, but we're working in good faith to see what we can do.

My own personal problem (ie: bias) is that I do my best to treat everything the same. Including recently changing the lead on Ex-gay Movement to match the source, even though its previous version wasn't... inaccurate... it just created a bias that shouldn't have been there (at least I hope it wasn't... the US AG should hopefully have his facts straight and info to back it up - but without being able to find such, the statement needed clarification to reflect the source without bias). I betcha he's right. But I know that doesn't matter. I thus don't know how to deal with this really. I have posted before that wp:censor is one of the most important cornerstones of Wikipedia, and the effects that continued special case exceptions will have on it. So, if I am unwilling to compromise on that, it makes it difficult to compromise on some of the points.

That leaves me my remaining issue on this matter. I'm treating it as a biography (albeit about a religious figure). Not as an article on religion - just as I wouldn't treat the article on Einstein as an article about science, even though various such topics are involved in his biography. Perhaps I am wrong on that - been told as much. But anyway...

As for this, as I said, I'm pretty sure this situation has created a bias for me - especially in dealing with that particular. Hence I asked, as I respect your levelheadedness and opinion. So, on that note, much thanks. You confirmed what I suspected. I'll forego even making mention of it over there. Things will ride out the way they will I guess. As long as efforts continue, unhindered, perhaps an end will be in sight soon. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your current approach is right, to work on individual articles. It is very difficult to work directly on general policies here--if significant, there are always special interests that get in the way--people think of how it will affect the particular article they care about, and the result is deadlock. Even if trivial, the extending discussions on punctuation show that people will fight to the bitter end on anything once they start fighting. But the actually effective policy and guidelines here are what we do, not what we say we do. The advantage of focusing on articles one at a time is that if what one wants to do fails, one can always walk away and choose another, and it doesn't affect the whole encyclopedia, The way to think of exceptions is that similar opportunities apply to those rules one thinks not optimal. The (informal) interpretation of the generalized laws of thermodynamics is that maintaining quality is a job that cannot be finished. The only expedient that might seem to work is to freeze permanently, but then quality falls as new developments cannot be incorporated. The hope is our equivalent of evolution: new people are always joining, and may be better than the old. The way I look on it, is what I can do I will do, and what is done right is done right, and what goes wrong is just like the rest of the world, whose problems I alone cannot cure. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

bibliographic boo-boo (perhaps by me)

Something slightly macabre has happened: either the publisher of a 2008 book of Ismo Hölttö's works has made a boo-boo, or it hasn't and this is yet more piece of evidence to suggest that people who (like me) aren't trained librarians shouldn't attempt to write up this kind of thing.

(I haven't seen "no. 24" for myself; does your library happen to possess a copy?) -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your user page :o)

I just read it - you're fascinating! There is just so much ... stuff ... in your life and background. I would love to have access to the kind of academic content you have access to - I would have trouble ever stopping reading. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes Made

Thanks for the feedback. I rewrote the lists as paragraphs and did one last sweep for stock phrases and unnecessary words. Also, I linked in with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Wikipedia page so it would not be an orphan. Please let me know when you move into the mainspace. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this.

Thanks.

JDBurget (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)JDBurget

Dancing with the Stars and related articles

Since you offered to help with regard to sourcing statistics and eliminating WP:IINFO on the talk page for the main article (Talk:Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series)), I wondered if you are interested in commenting in a discussion on the talk page for season 12 of the program (Talk:Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 12)#Unsourced info).

So far I have requested sources for the incredibly detailed level of statistics and that the fancruft be trimmed. However, other editors revert and re-add the unsourced info without addressing the concerns on the talk page. Not sure about your interest level or if you care to comment, but thought I'd open it up and see if you have any input. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the uncomfortable position of having advised other people to add sources, but being myself with the ability to do so on this particular topic--its too far from anything I normally have competence it. Literally everything I've learned about the subject, I've learned on Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Contesting speedy deletion of The Linden School entry

Hello;

I am a high school teacher at The Linden School, a girl's school in Toronto, and have been working with the grade 11 & 12 media studies course to create an entry for our school. This assignment arose from a podcast we heard about the gender disparity in Wikipedia contributors. We have had many discussions about informative vs. marketing language, and the girls have looked at the Wikipedia articles for similar local private schools like Bishop Strachan, Havergal and Branksome hall for tone, layout and citation. We were ready to finish the work today only to see that it has been speedily deleted.

We're hoping that you could please reinstate our article. They have worked very hard with the English teacher to keep the language as unbiased as possible, but if there are any examples you can give otherwise, we will of course change it.

Thank you for your time. --Kgoodale (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it hasn't been deleted.

In the meantime, the bad news is that most school articles on Wikipedia are not good examples to imitate! (For example, there are more than ten thousand articles covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools that have never got past "Stub" status, as compared with only a few dozen that have reached "Good article" or better. Chances are, other similar schools in your locality are amongst the ten thousand.)

This first link is probably already on the article now, but take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines, and possibly take a look at the way some B-class school articles are laid out, phrased and referenced, alternatively an example of a secondary school article that has reached the heights of Featured Article is The Judd School. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I restored it immediately I read the request, though I'm just posting this message now. I apologize for deleting it, for it was in fact fixable. It however needs considerable work--it is nowhere ready.

Statements like " Linden believes in a feminist pedagogy and focuses on female-centric leaning" need sources--presumably it's the school motto or something of the sort and can be quoted as such. The section on "Acknowledgements" is inappropriate. Convert the quotations into references to statements about the school. Remove unsourced statements of praise. Avoid all vague terms of praise--in fact, try to use as few adjectives as possible. Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the school and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the school, or to prospective pupils--that sort of content is considered promotional. Do not include the names of individual teacher, Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive. Try to put the information into paragraphs, not lists.

There is great difficulty in writing a really good article on a recently established school, because the usual topics that warrant extensive discussion, the history, the architecture, the famous former students, are not generally applicable. If there are already any former students who have a WP article, add a section linking to their articles. The article Demiurge mentions is a good article, but that;s because there's an extensive history to discuss, & thearticle is almost exclusively devoted to discussing the history. It cannot really serve as a usable example in an ordinary case.

There is some basic information missing: the number of students (and its growth from the beginning) , the name of the current Head, the basic physical facilities--it mentions a building, but of what size--what athletics facilities does it use? It is usual to indicate the % of graduates who go on to university, & it is not out of place to try to indicate the quality of the universities. :We have a formal program for assisting you. But since, I've begun, Ill continue. I 've asked the 2 editors of this articles who have enabled their email to email me, but the person I 'd normally work with is the instructor..

More generally, I agree that most articles on non-historic UK schools are pretty bad, even within the limitations. For lack of other things to discuss, there is usually extensive treatment of the uniform, the details of the house system, the exact curriculum, and sometimes the school hours. None of this is of any real relevance except to the students and their parents or prospective students. (US schools have similar but not identical problems) I only deleted this article because it was considerably worse than even our usual.

DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

An example of a specialist school founded in 2004 that (just barely) made it to Good Article status is Pathlight School. It may be more useful as an example because it's much shorter than just about any other GA-class or even B-class school article that I've seen. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• After that fuss it's interesting to notice that the article appears not to have been edited since 3 November except by long-established Wikipedians (ie not by anyone from the school) and reflects badly on the school's attention to detail and spelling - I've refrained from correcting "puilding", "conudcted" and "Extra-cirriculars", though I mentioned them on the talk page, as the girls are supposed to have been working so hard on the project! Ah well. PamD 23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sevilla Public Library

Notable? I suspect there may be sources in Spanish.. Seville's a big old city. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

somewhat confused article. It's apparently the main public library of the city, The main public library or library system of any large city is presumably notable, and source will be findable. 20:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It could be the provincial library, Seville is also a province.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

from the Spanish web page it is; or it may serve as both as is often the case; either would be notable. I unfortunately do not have the time to work on it immediately. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

SPA list on deletion review

Dear DGG, I was wondering if you could give me some advice. I'm a bit annoyed to be listed on Mathsci's list of SPAs at the deletion review page for Energy Catalyzer, as I clearly shouldn't be on this list. I've asked him politely a few times on his user talk page to remove me from this list, but he hasn't responded to it, except to delete my post. I really don't think he had any right to put me on list, and I'm a bit miffed to be branded a SPA. I was wondering if there was anything I can do to get my username erased from it, as I think it's something of an insult. Thanks, 109a152a8a146 (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it seems you are not, but it is not worth the trouble. The page will not remain active much longer; Just go on and work here, though to avoid confusion in the future., you may want to pick a different user name. BTW, please take a look at WP:PROF, and some of the related AfDs to get a better idea of our standards. DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. About the WP:PROF, maybe you would like to discuss this with me? I was wondering about these guidelines, since especially criterion 1 seems a bit flexible to me. I interpret it to mean that only academics with an exceptional impact on their field warrant an article, while others think that just being a professor and having any published research is sufficient. I don't really have a very strong opinion about this, but in my view the current guidelines only support inclusion of highly (whatever that means) influential researchers. I would tend to agree with this as otherwise WP might become a 'professors' directory', but for example the German WP explicitly assumes notability of any professor. I'd be interested to know your views on this (in either case you were right in removing the tag from Roland Benz because of the Wisdom professorship, I must have missed that somehow). Cheers! 109a152a8a146 (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

exceptional = famous. "Exceptional" is not the criterion in any other subject. We have articles on songs that have charted; they don't have to win awards; we have articles on books that get multiple reviews; they don't have to win prizes. We have articles on politicians in state legislatures--they don't have to be in the national Senate. We have articles on everyone who has competed in the Olympics, regardless of how they placed. and so on. Notable is a little more than merely significant , but certainly much less than famous. In many subject fields, we use the GNG, which defines notability by references. I think personally we over-emphasise it, but it's quite firmly accepted. This won't work for researchers: it's much too broad--anyone who has published papers and had them referenced, if the references discuss the work other than merely listing it, would meet the GNG. That essentially includes anyone who has ever been a post-doc in science. On the other hand, requiring articles about them in newspapers and the like doesn't work either, because in most fields newspapers only write about those few who work on something controversial to the public. And full bios in the usual sense aren't published until someone retires or dies.

What I give you is the consensus, as shown by a great many AfDs. The only ones that are exceptions are in fields which some people here regard as for some reason intrinsically not very important, or having very low standards, such as education; or, sometimes, in fields where the person has gotten themselves involved in pseudoscience or religious or political controversy and people want to keep the article out on those grounds. (I don't defend these positions, but it happens they prevail.)

The German WP assumes notability of any professor, and in the classical European sense, we regard a German or UK professorship similarly, equating it to full professor and head of department and named chair. Now that much of Europe is adopting the US standards of lower ranks that are still called professor, we at least will limit it to full professor. The full professor standard is not actually formally excepted here. I personally would certainly accept it for those at research universities, but it's not part of the formal guideline--some of the others here who work in the field here oppose it. But in practice, someone who is a full professor in a major research university has almost never been deleted in WP in the last 4 years at least, at least in the absence of one of those two earlier factors. There is some leeway in definition of major research university, but in practice its pretty clear. At present, we do not normally accept a full professor at an ordinary 4 year college who has published very little beyond their thesis. So much for the current standard.

But Personally, I think the coverage should be wider. The rank of significance both in the profession and the world that corresponds to those we accept for popular entertainment is in my opinion the equivalent of any faculty member with tenure at any university or a major 4 year college in the US, or equivalent position elsewhere. The rank we accept for some sports is in my opinion even lower and much more ephemeral. This is still very different from a faculty directory, which accepts any full time faculty member.

I think we need much more coverage of the traditional academic subjects to match our coverage of popular culture, and the simplest way to start it is with biographies, which are much easier to write than subject articles. It's not necessarily a matter of bias, from my having spent all my career in such an environment--some of the people here with the relatively stricter attitudes have done just the same. If you stay here a little longer, you will find me described as an extreme inclusionist. I'm not really, certainly not in all subjects, but I want balance, and I think the danger to the encyclopedia is not the inclusion of marginal individuals, but the inclusion of promotionalism, regardless of importance. That's where I do my deletion--I think it's about 12,000 items by now. The rule I would like is that if a reasonable person might expect to find it in a comprehensive encyclopedia, it should be here, but what is here should be reliable and informative. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's what I call a comprehensive answer! I wouldn't go as far as you in supporting the inculsionist view, but you do have a very compelling point to make by comparing articles on academic subjects with the coverage on pop culture topics. The reason why I wouldn't go as far as you with regard to inclusionism is precisely because of the problem of promotionalism, which unfortunately also exists in academics, especially these days. I've certainly seen cases where the importance of an individual has been artificially inflated on WP (although in most cases not by the individuals themselves, by the looks of it). I know that in principle there is no logistical reason to not have an article on almost any academic (or any topic), but I do disagree with WP being used for promotional purposes. There is also the problem that merely using the title of full professor as a measure of notability may exclude researchers at institutions that do not give out such titles, e.g. institutes not directly affiliated with universities. I would therefore prefer a measure of notability that is independent of rank or title, but rather based on some direct indicator of scientific impact. Otherwise the bar for inclusion becomes skewed towards full professors. I guess this all has to be judged on a case-by-case basis. The AfDs I've generated largely concern articles that seem 'fishy' to me in terms of promotion or inflated importance, but I don't mind if they don't 'go through' as long as there is a fruitful discussion. I'm sure we'll cross paths again, and I'll keep your comments in mind when proposing deletions or participating in discussions. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

there is no necessary correlation between promotionalism and notability in any fieldI have seen ridiculously promotional articles from very senior scientists, sometimes prepared by the department PR staff, but sometimes by the person themselves. I have also seen very short factual basic articles on people who are not conceivably notable-- a two-line article about a post-doc, and sometimes an eminent scientist will write so short and modest an article that one has to actually check for publications to realize they're important. . This is true in other fields also. Local non-notable businessmen may write articles that are by no means promotional--in fact, they do rather often. Notable ones may try it themselves, and do it right, or try it themselves and get it hopelessly wrong; if they use a professional, most of the time even the better professionals write too promotional a piece--regardless of notability .

The reason for going by rank is that it is field-independent. the faculty at, say, Yale, can judge who is a major figure in their own field much better than we can, & if the faculty in any one department get out of line about it, the provost will correct them. Why on earth should you think that impact does not correspond to academic rank? It's the basic criterion. The problem using it, is that it cannot be evaluated numerically across fields, and, except at the extremes, can not measured numerically with any degree of validity, Every issue of each information science journal has at least one article proposing a new variation, there's so little confidence in anything available, and normally they don't attempt to validate it outside a single subject. Consider the most widely and stupidly used, h index. A person publisher 10 publications, all with 10 citations: h=10. A person publishes 8 publications with 10 citations and 2 with 500; h=10. In most subjects, the 2nd but not the 1st won't be notable-- *& in humanities in some subjects, even the first can be a distinguished record. . This is an entire academic field of research, much watched, because everyone likes to rate their colleagues.

Why shouldn't the bar be skewed towards full professors? If it isn't, something's dead wrong about the system--as it has been in some places where rank is a matter of time-in-office. What I think you are looking for, is a measure of who, in the early stages of their career when not yet tenured, will become important. Everyone in academic administration would like to find that also. But we don't consider notability as inherent talent, but actual accomplishment. I wish other fields had equally good standards as the US/West european (and now becoming world-wide) system of academic rank--almost none of them do. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Becoming a full professor is quite often just a matter of time in office, and that is precisely the problem. This matter-of-course promotion is now becoming less common, but it was very widespread in the past. I'm not looking for an early-career talent predictor, but for a measure of actual impact, and if you will, accomplishment. This is not given by simply being made a full professor. Putting the emphasis on titles also unnaturally raises the bar for researchers not directly associated with universities (e.g. CVI or certain MPIs, or even companies). A lot of research these days is done outside of the traditional university setting, and even that system is fortunately becoming less byzantine. I don't care what academic rank somebody holds as long as they have demonstrated substantial impact in their field. This is different from looking for a predictor of future impact and using that as a criterion. In short, I haven't seen any evidence that a full professorship (in any system) automatically equates to scientific notability. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In one sense you are right: the effectual bar in the US is at the promotion to associate professor, which carries tenure. No major research university would ever appoint someone to tenure unless they were quite sure they would qualify for full professor also. I take this as an argument for extending the inclusion to associate professors, and if there is a strong publication record, we've sometimes accepted them at AfD & I intend to keep trying on occasion. This is however not the case in Europe, where the distinctiveness of full professor has been much stronger. Now, there is another sense in which full professor might be an appropriate class for notability , more so than associate+full: notability in the profession comes with recognition by the network. Whether someone does work of greater creativity at younger ages depends on the individual and the profession--it is more true in Math than any other subject. But by the time they are full they will have larger grants, bigger work groups, and more connections---they of course go together. They therefore will have a greater influence on the profession.

Recognition of non-university research is more complicated here, and so are research positions in universities that carry special ranks, but the easiest way of handling them is to correlate with the euiavlent publication records for people who do hold the academic ranks. The problem is much greater in industry, where people normally don't publish, and it can be very difficult to figure out notability. But some easy obviously notable cases exist, & there are a few thousand articles to do for the members of the US National Academy of Engineering & the Institute of Medicine--almost none of whom have articles.

Obviously rank is not the only criterion. But I continue to consider it a clear demonstration that the profession considers the person notable. But to a certain extent its irrelevant for practical concerns, because there have been no cases where the article has been deleted, except the special cases I mentioned (& those outside the Western academic system.). I don't consider the organization of research universities dysfunctional except in terms of efficiency, most of which is due to management and funding problems. But it produces quality as surely as the 19th century German system on which it is based did. It's a curious paradox that the quality of the US education system is so utterly dismal--at every level except the research level.

I challenge you: which of the full professors at Yale are not notable? (I pick it because I've no connections with them--the actual places I do know well are Princeton and Berkeley.) DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not contest that most of the full professors at Yale (at least in my field) are notable; but then I know them personally and wouldn't say they were even if I did ;-) I don't think that this is really a valid question, as Yale is really one of the top universities. A more relevant question would be: Which one of the full professors at a middling university (I hesitate to name one for reasons of propriety) is notable? I'm not saying that none of them are (some are truly exceptional), but a large number of them just are not (and I would include myself and most of my colleagues in that category). Being a professor (especially in the older generations) is pretty much a career choice, rather than a real achievement. Recognition by your peers is, but not every professor is highly respected by his/her peers. At the end of the day it is just a job, which you can strive to do well. Some actors or managers are very notable, but most are not. It doesn't mean they are rubbish, just that they are not notable. The chairman of a company that sells sheep dip in the Outer Hebrides may be more capable than the chairman of, say, Volkswagen, but he will not be notable because of that. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the nature of the university matters--and is the fuzzy part of the standard I use. To avoid fuzziness, normally I use such an argument only when the university is as unquestionably major as Yale, and thus almost always the quality of the university is not one of the matters disputed--if it were, I would not use the argument. I've been very much more careful & restrictive in my wording as it goes down the scale. The most expansive definition of major== just considering the US == can be interpreted as the 108 universities in the Carnegie RU/VH (very high research activity) list [5]; I would not use my argument for all of them in all fields; for many of them what you say can be right, and these are the ones you refer to as "middling" -- again, depending on the field. (even for the top ones, it is possible that there may be periods when a few of the departments may not be as good as the others; even for those not on the list and some college, some departments can be first-rate & recognized as such.) . For as a more selective group it's hard to define them; there are various listings, but there's no obvious cut off point. However, knowledgeable people usually agree for a specific field in a specific university.

There are many cases where we have a formal standard that indeed is rather too permissive at the boundaries--the clearest example is all Olympic athletes. There are some cases where the "generally recognized as major" distinction comes in also: the example most familiar to me is the pop music requirement for charting, which only counts what the people in the field here consider major charts.

However, you've said in a current AfD that the Harvard Medical School is not one of the school where all its full professors are notable--you also said there that the number of citations necessary for showing notability are for at least a few papers to have citation counts in the thousands, I therefore suggest that your standards are unreasonable and should as little be accepted here as if someone insisted on including all Assistant Professors at any college. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not said that full professors at Harvard are not notable; I have only said that the subject of the article doesn't seem notable to me, and I could not find any indication that he indeed was a full professor. I found one fleeting reference that he was an assistant professor at one point. Maybe he was a full professor, but there is not reference for this. Also, I have never said that allthe full professors at Yale are notable. The ones that I know (and probably most others) are, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that some aren't. I also think that merely asking for 100 citation is pretty low; this would include a large number of postdocs and possibly even a few PhD students. I agree that my '1000's' may have been a bit over the top, but also I'm very surprised that there are not more citations, the field seems to be much less active than I thought... I still stand by my statement that citations in the low 100's aren't much to write home about.

In principle I agree with you that full professors at 'major' institutions are likely to be notable because these institutions usually get to pick and choose. Still, I don't thing being a full professor there determines notability, the two are only usually closely correlated. Outliers do exist. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Outliers exist. There were even a few Nobel prizes awarded that seem very strange looking back at them. Agreed that sometimes peoples articles saying Prof. are not really professor; these sometimes come from overenthusiastic students. The question is, how many AfDs is it worth debating to remove a few outliers, keeping in mind the frequency of our own errors; if we debate each one, and get 10% of them wrong, are you saying the outliers are greater in number than that? "the subject of the article doesn't seem very notable to me," is one of our classic non-arguments. You say that, I say the opposite, and where are we? counting !votes, votes that at Wikipedia are going to include both the knowledgeable and the unknowledgable. So the votes we're counting actually depend on which of us is more persuasive, not which of us has the better arguments. (the Socratic argument against rhetoric, not mine, but I even if I hadn't thought so before, the general run of proceedings at Wikipedia would have surely convinced me.) If you're only been here a short time, you won't have realized the extent of our gross inconsistencies. There's this tendency in some academics here to not think that people in their field are notable. I put it down to their using the standard of the own aspirations. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That is very true... and also the reason why there should be an objective measure of notability. I just don't think that an academic rank or title is a valid and objective measure. Not every article needs to be discussed, but debating an occasional article that lies on the edge of notability is a worthwhile exercise as it may enable us to decide on a verifiable and independent measure. I also agree that 'I don't think X is notable' is not a valid argument; however, 'I don't think X is notable because Y' is. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Heads-up

Kiefer.Wolfowitz has complained in the Steven Zhang RfA that he does not understand what you wrote in your !vote there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

KW does not understand most of what I write, or at least he says so. I have given up trying to communicate with him. You will find a little way above a statement of mine that if I had had better judgment, I would have given up earlier. Perhaps that is wrong, since he agreed with it, but I think he meant it in a different sense than I did. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Academic Journals in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Academic Journals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

yes I will; I assume you have also asked Crusio. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

MikeWazowski

So...back to ANI, or just block directly? For me, he used up his "final chance" about 10 improper deletion tags ago. I know, I know, I have made (and continue to make) mistakes, too, but the nearly complete refusal to engage in dialogue and tendency to make the same mistakes over and over again, combined with the breakneck pace at which he's tagging, I believe is causing the encyclopedia harm. On the other hand, what with all the talk lately about First Mover vs. Second Mover advantage, etc., I'm concerned about unilaterally blocking since the last ANI ended w/o resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

not just that they're wrong--anyone can interpret differently, but that so many of them are so totally mistaken. What I think is happening, is that he does not actually read the article contents. However, I am not the person to block anyone for excessive deletions; my position about deletionism is too well known. I think the ones to consult are Kudpung or MR Girl, who are the least inclusionist of the admins who commented there. Perhaps a formal 4i notice would help make the case if it needs to go further. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, speaking as someone who is far more of a deletionist than yourself (though I now like to believe that I'm somewhere "in the middle"), I can certainly say that I find his tagging inappropriate. Yes, a lot of the articles he's tagging need to be deleted...but the failure percentage is just too high given his high volume of output (IMHO). I've left followup messages for him to at least try dialogue again before action; if I have time, I'll try to review his tagging in the next few days, and see if it's worth going to the dramaboards again. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think if he ignores warnings, it might be possible to avoid the boards. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Abdullah Ibn Saba lead

I am trying to improve the article lead for Abdullah Ibn Saba. Would you please contribute in this job? I am pretty involved in a long dispute with user:Wiqqi55 and all my edits will be possibly reverted in a second. A third party editor probably would be a better person to improve the lead --Penom (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephan_Reiff-Marganiec

You appear in the history of this article, so thought you might like to chip in. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonstration of Higher Value

Since you originally tagged it with a prod, I thought you'd like to chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonstration of Higher Value. This might be viewed as crass canvassing on my part (and I suppose it actually is to some extent) but I'm interested in your thoughts regarding the nature and value of the various sources being discussed. Besides, I'm sure many would point out that, statistically, turning to you for extra help in swinging an AfD towards deletion is a poor bet. :-) Best, Pichpich (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

this is not considered canvassing; such notices are appropriate and normal for anyone who has dealt with the article by placing or removing a deletion notice. As for AfD votes, I do not think I need to build up my record of either saying !delete as that's what I say 1/3 of the time, according to the AfD stats. [6] DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction and apologize

I already corrected my mistake. Sincerely, I don't think it was so dramatic as you exposed, but anyway, I already retracted myself, I apologized and I flagellated myself 15 times. I'll be more careful next time, and I'll try to write in very simple English, in order to avoid confusions and false friends. Thank you for pointing me out my mistake, it's always interesting to learn every day. --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I recognize that properly saying that one doubts the existence of someone, or the basic claims they made about themselves, can be a problem. In my experience, "unverifiable" with a list of where you looked is the most convincing and the simplest. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialism in One Country

Is this disruption to make a point? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

yes,it is. If anyone cares to make a case for a topic ban at an/i , I shall support it. This is part of a long campaign over many articles to say that the Nazi'a National Socialism is a form of Socialism, and that therefore Communisms and Socialisms are equivalent to Nazism. (This will explain the peculiar non-arguments you noticed at the AfD.) DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I think, thanks. Cusop Dingle (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cases of penis removal

The vitriol and abuse was coming entirely from one side if you look at the edits. All the abusers hurling insults were for "keep". Your closing of the aFd will set a very bad exmaple in the future, and incentive for "keep" proponents to hurl insults at the opposing side, which would lead to the aFd being closed and the article being kept, which would accomplish their aim, regardless of the merits of deletion. Lugnuts, Karfks, and Nayyurc were all involved in the insult throwing, and they were all for keep.Haydar Haydar (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And if next time the aFd comes up, and the keep proponents hurl insults at us, would that mean the aFd will also be "no concensus"? Thats exactly the same as keeping the article.Haydar Haydar (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

actually, I closed it in large part so there would be another opportunity to make a fair case for delete, that wouldn't be attacked in the same manner. I do not think I or any admin could actually have judged the issue without being affected by the behavior. The closing wasn't support for keeping necessarily; had I wanted to do that I could have argued for keep, and hoped that my argument at least would have sounded more sensible and dispassionate. Further, I did block one individual for vandalizing talk pages, including your own. I suggest waiting about a week or two, and then trying again. The experience here can serve as a guide to what arguments are likely to be effective. I'd suggest a concise presentation of them that sounds as calm and routine as possible. What I am aiming at is a fair debate on the merits. If you want my opinion, I think the article is a little less likely to get kept after a renewed discussion than it would have been if this continued. I had already decided what to do if the abuse continues in the same manner: there will be blocks, and I will warn individuals appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

i would understand keeping Lugnuts comments in view, but Karfks, and Nayyurc's insults (and their justifications for keeping) were so ridiculous, shouldn't their comments have been struck out and deleted? I, as a pro deletionist, would think that their comments would have been detrimental to keeping the article, the sheer nature of their comments being childish insults should have let them be deleted.

I am asking this not to reopen the article now, but because i noticed a Strike-through text option while editing. Shouldn't that have been used on their comments rather than closing the whole aFd because of them?Haydar Haydar (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

not for vandalism of this nature; in fact, I'm considering asking for oversight. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought your close was a great piece of work. Keep it up! (Meanwhile maybe there should be a List of toe amputations. Clyde Barrow chopped off 2 of his toes in 1932 to get a prison transfer, for instance. Jon Hutt cut off all the toes on one foot with his pocket knife when his foot got trapped. Then there are feet, noses, fingers, arms... the possibilities go on and on for articles of gruesome titillation. A list of hand amputations would include thousands of thieves in Islamic countries. Do you think such lists would improve the encyclopedia? Edison (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

when I said that the close implied nothing about what my opinions were on the question of keeping or deleting the article, I meant it. I made suggestions at the close how to make the article stronger. I made suggestions here how to make a more focussed case for deleting it. The quality of the prior debate was influenced by feelings about the subject, not the article. The is an uncertain boundary between fascination and revulsion, but neither are pertinent to an AfD discussion. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Two personal attacks, only a mere 3 day block, with the entire opposition to him shut out of discussion. Now hes got an entire oen week reprieve to cook up new insults. You said you would block individuals who do this again, but I notice you did not explain whether you would jettison the entire AFD if they spew another barage of personal attacks on the page. You only mentioned what you would do to the users, not the AFD should this be repeated next week.Bunser (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nayyurcc or however you spell his username, got what he wanted- he hasn't edited for months, his last edits being to the list of penis removals, adding entries. I invited him to take part in the discussion because he was a contributor, but he hijacks the discussion by throwing insults, and he achieved his mission, which was to keep the article. I doubt he intended to edit any other article other than adding cases of penis removals, so the 3 day block isn't that much of a punishment. Do you really want people in the future expressing their feelings and insults as a way to keep stalling the process? If keep proponents apply their feelings about the subject, and color it with personal attacks, and we apply your logic to the procedure, then all AFDs will end up with no concensus. Thats essentially telling keep proponents that personal attacks will get them what they want.Bunser (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What happens again if they shower the AFD with insults and personal feelings is still unclear because you aren't saying what you would do. It needs to be spelled out clearly, that such comments would be struck out or removed, or you might shut down the AFD again and tell us to wait for another week, and then a repeat happens. This needs to be answeredBunser (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, in my considered opinion based on years of experience at AfD, I think the odds would have been better than even that the article would have been kept, either at the AfD or at a subsequent deletion review, had I had not closed it at the time. All it needed to do was to attract a more sensible defender who would cleanup the article, and make a case for a list of things that are not themselves notable, but are cumulatively notable--notability does not apply to article content. Such arguments have often been accepted here. List article decisions , even more than other AfD decisions, are very inconsistent, & the result depends on who shows up. Worse lists than this have been kept, and better ones deleted. You will notice above, that Edison, a very experienced editor here who does not always agree with me,and who clearly does not want to keep the article, approves my decision--he understand the dynamics of AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • for the record, I subsequently deleted the article via Speedy criterion G12, once it was admitted to be entirely or almost entirely a copyvio .

Need signature

Thanks for your helpful comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian (2nd nomination). Would you please add a signature. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Serranilla Bank

Reckon enough history could be found on History of Serranilla Bank to justify a separate article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it extraordinarily unlikely DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Novelguide

I am reaching out for help to revive the article that I wrote some time ago about an educational website - Novelguide.com. As of today, there are 549 articles here on wikipedia that site this website for its content. I used the google search box under the wikipedia search results to find this number. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Novelguide User:AbbyWaters —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

Do you have 3rd party substantial references? DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Article on an academic

Hi DGG

I took a stab at trying to make Michèle Pujol less inappropriate, but I didn't complete the job. What are your thoughts on the notability of the subject?

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 09:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

highly notable as an academic and an author. Special issues in someone's honor are a proof of notability by WP:PROF. What's needed now for AUTHOR is reviews of her books. I'll take a look through the article a little later. . DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand the general principle but wasn't sure whether Atlantis A Women's Studies Journal was a journal of sufficient standing to qualify. ^Bongo_matic 00:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be in a major journal, just a RS. If it would meet the GNG, it's good enough (& for that matter, she meets the GNG also). DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for saving Otto Wiener (physicist)

I'd like to augment the content of the German article, but need the help of my sister who has some books about that period. Catching her may take one or two weeks, though. Meanwhile I run a Google's translation of the German page, but most of it is commented out for the time being. ale (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

there is no time limit on improvements. I'll look at the deWP page, & your translation; I can probably improve it. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Network for Better Futures

Hi. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to revise my attempt at a page for The Network for Better Futures. I followed your instructions and posted revised copy on the page you set up for me to do so. Please let me know if I can proceed with creating the page. JDBurget/The Network for Better Futures Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDBurget (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest rewriting the first two lists into paragraphs, and making another check for the use of stock phrases and unnecessary words. I check in a day or two and move to mainspace. I cannot guarantee that someone will not put it up for regular deletion, nor have I any particular influence on the result. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I rewrote the lists as paragraphs and did one last sweep for stock phrases and unnecessary words. Also, I linked in with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Wikipedia page so it would not be an orphan. Please let me know when you move into the mainspace. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on this. Thanks. JDBurget (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)JDBurget

Hello - noticed that the JDBurget version of this article is now live - can you change the title so that it doesn't include the JDBurget portion? So that it's just 'The Network for Better Futures'....Thanks.

JDBurget (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)JDBurget

Save please the following article Carlo_alberto_nucci

[[7]] Original author really did not do Nucci justice (just a one liner). I did a major restructuring, added bunch of source. In short the subject is quite notable, with 200 hits or so in google books and as many scientific papers, editor in chief of a reputable scientific journal, IEEE fellow, full professor, etc. Thank you for your consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standard2211 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

you did fairly well with it.-= after your work, it needed no further saving DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth)

Hi DGG, Thanks for yout changes to the VicHealth webpage - some of the puffery was pretty far removed from NPOV! I'm doing my best to avoid making changes to the page (Declaration of Interest - I'm an employee of VicHealth, keeping a weather eye on the Article), and have tried to promote this stance amongst my colleagues, too. I note that you appropriately added the POV and Advert tages, but then directly made changes which rendered them obsolete; I pretty sure that's not how they're supposed to be used. Could you I ask that you now remove the tags, please, or explain their continuted presence on the Article Talk page?

In addition, you've removed the couple of items in the See Also section as "not needed". Having now read the Manual of Style for the See also section, the two items seem competely appropriate (I added them in the first instance) - they're not linked within the body of the article, and are directly relevant. In point of fact, the Health Promotion page has an outbound link to the VicHealth page, making a reciprocal link completely approporiate. Could you please either reinstate this section, or explain it's removal on the article Talk page?

Thanks, M1rtyn (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's how I work: usually I add the tags first, and after that see if I have time to work on the article. If I do sometimes I finish, sometimes I leave it incomplete and mean to go back to it; most often, I do a start to indicate what I think is needed. In this case, I meant to get back, for there are some adjectives of puffery that still need to be removed, and the l2nd paragraph of the introduction partially duplicates the "Objectives" --perhaps you could see to those things. Do not let COI worry you when what you are doing is clearly improving the article by condensing it a little. For the see also, it would be even bette if you could work that into the article, but if not, add it back. That's a reasonable question for someone with COI to ask about before doing. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, David - I appreciate you taking time with this. I'll do as you suggest. M1rtyn (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Does this look strange

This account just feels wrong.[8]. I won't have time to do much of a comparison for the next few days, but it just doesn't look right to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not a new user, considering rd[specially [9]. The comments at the various AfDs make some degree of sense, so not a troll. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suspecting troll as much as sock. Might be worth keeping tabs on. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

exactly. But checking all the comments, some make very little sense. Most socks do it a little more smoothly, DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

a troll (or, more precisely, a sockpuppet here with the announced intention of trolling) is what he has turned out to be: [10]. I've blocked him. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

subsequently identified as a sock puppet of SailorSonic DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

3S Understanding

While on new page patrol, I tagged this one, but need another set of eyes. The subject matter may be notable, but the current version almost seems to be a condensed version of one book author's opinion on the subject. It needs an experienced academic to just look at it, which is why I'm here, of course. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

He's a notable author, as I can see from WorldCat [11], who should have an article. As is my general view, a bio article article on him would be better than one on one of his books, or on one of his theories. Whether this particular term is standard in the field, as the name of his theories is again a question: Google books shows it is at least occasionally used. I consider it meaningless, but I consider most schematizations of the obvious to be unhelpful. The obvious, in this case, is that test-focused learning is too narrow. I have not yet read the books, but I hope their content gives some ideas about what to do about it in the current environment. The article text is almost certainly copyvio. I sometimes tag such articles as promotional, because improving it will take a complete rewriting. I will suggest to the author a good way to go forwards. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I felt that there were some problems but the content in general was worthwhile if in a different format. The contributor is obviously educated and has much to offer Wikipedia, but needed some guidance. In this instance, I was not the right person, so I appreciate you taking the time. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

DeusM deletion review puzzle

Hi. As far as I can see, you are an experienced Admin who is at least willing to explain his/her thinking. I know I am annoying people by persisting in commenting at [[12]], but I am honestly bewildered - even though it's a given that editors who spend time at Deletion Reviews are probably interested in deleting stuff!

I am not lobbying you, because I do not remotely expect you to change your mind. I was just wondering if you could clarify why nobody will come out and say (1) your sources are not independent or (2) three sources aren't enough or (3) I believe the sources are corrupt: or just anything, so I would know why there is this apparently seamless consensus.

If I decide it's worth re-creating the article (I planned to create a series on social businesses), maybe I should get my sources cleared at the Reliable Sources notice board first? Anyway, if it's not too tedious, I would be grateful for any insight.WebHorizon (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

Sadly, the closing editor has taken it personally and gone nuclear [[13]] on me. I guess he doesn't have a simple answer to the question. Pity discussion degrades so quickly.WebHorizon (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

(talk page stalker)Wander over to the reliable sources page and see if you can learn it by heart! Even then, it's impossible to get it all. Over here in the UK, some of our daily papers are considered eminently "reliable", but others are definitely not! Still, that page will give you probably most of the best information, in one place. In any event, don't be disheartened. Try working on something else for a little while instead. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The RS Noticeboard should probably have been my first stop. I did some searches on trade magazines there, and my sources should be a slam dunk (but who knows?), and then we wouldn't be having this unnecessary blood bath. Maybe I'll try an article on a similar topic, confirming the sources first. Thanks.WebHorizon (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

the simplest thing to do is to find additional sources that do not seem to be derived from press releases. I'll be glad to give an opinion on them, there or here. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I do appreciate you responding. My frustration stems from the fact that the existing sources just don't give that impression. It was pure speculation. If you'd like to take a look, you'll see they all have different content and include different material from interviews. You'd have to hypothesize three separate press releases, or one massive one from which each source managed to derive different quotes! I'm afraid the WP:IDONTLIKEIT mood relieved editors of any sense that they needed to check.

• Article from a magazine owned by Crain Communications, mainly a full interview transcript (funny kind of press release!).
• Article from a magazine owned by Red7Media, based to all appearances on a different interview (no common text I can see).
• Article from a magazine owned by Haymarket Media, different content again.

It's a slam dunk that these are independent of DeusM, and it's a much simpler hypothesis that they were written independently rather than drawn from some hypothetical press release so rich in content that everyone drew different quotes. I mean, that's wild! Anyway...WebHorizon (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

none of those three are usable as a RS for notability. The first is the best of them, because the ed. took the trouble to integrate the statements of the proprietor into running text. The second was, like many interviews, just a chance for him to say whatever he wanted. The third is a very slightly reword copy of the product's standard press release, which I've seen on about dozen sites now & is an excellent illustration of the point that even reasonably good magazines carry PR. They consider it part of their role in the sense of informing people who might be interested, but it does not make for notability. It might be possible to make the argument that if major commentator or editors let him use their columns to describe the product, they did so because the product is notable. To make that argument work, the interviewer has to be actually famous, and I cannot judge in that part of the field. The response to that argument tends to be WP:NOTINHERITED I remind you it's not me whom you'll need to convince, but also editors here who are considerably more skeptical to product articles than I am. We go my consensus, not by my opinion. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I entirely disagree, of course. The press and media use press releases all the time, and make editorial decisions about which ones provoke worthwhile stories. I am not even going to search for the part of WP:RS policy which says that interview transcripts cannot be notable. I am sure it doesn't exist. What you now claim to have here is a "reworded" press release and two other stories which are not press releases. Where does that leave us? It doesn't matter, as another of the handful of editors involved in the discussion is threatening on my talk page to drive any other content I post off the project. I could ask for an RfC, but at the end of the day I have other things to do.WebHorizon (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon

Resignation of Silvio Berlusconi

Somebody had already merged it into the Silvio Berluconi article and the undue weight was dreadful so I reverted it back but then I could see they'd probably keep reverting me so I compromised by moving it to the Political article, where I think it belongs. I still think its a valid separate article though and we are not paper so space isn't an issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have merged but for the fact an editor hurriedly dumped it into his biography creating a major UNDUE problem. As I didn't see anybody defending against the merge I figured that was the best thing to do and move it to the Political article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you actually. The AfD was overinfluenced by the immediate drama of the event. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping!

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject user warnings/Testing#Preparing a test of these suggestions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

01:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Tophthemetalbender's message to DGG

Hello, Tophthemetalbender here. Um...you left a message for 24.253.150.132 on their talk page about the article on Bishop J. Neaul Haynes. The thing is...is that 24.253.150.132 didn't create the article, I did. I will kindly correct the mistakes you told me to correct. --Tophthemetalbender (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

sorry---I was after all puzzled that an ip had been able to create it. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

May I have your input, please?

I've just come up with this essay on civility, in the hope that it might be a useful link from various places. Could I please have your comments on it? Many thanks, Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Future of the US Education Program and the Ambassador Project

There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Children In Need 2011

Kindly refrain from deleting articles like you did with children in need 2011. If you do not comply and restore the article, I will restore it my self. Leave a message on my talk. Dannyboy1209 (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Children in need 2011

Please restore the article. It is clearly encyclopaedic. Please see Children in Need 2010 and previous years. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC) No. I deleted this versions with slightly different capitalization as promotional also. I have blocked re-creation for one week, because creating this when the show has not yet aired is blatant promotionalism. Your recourse is deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The show started at 19:00GMT and has been underway for 2 hours. Please see [14] Leaky Caldron 21:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

then the problem is that it should have been deleted sooner. I'll unprotect tomorrow, and see if I can find a good version to undelete. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The latest version you deleted is fine. There was no content in the previous versions, there is quite a bit of content in the latest version, with proper warning tags. Can you do it now please? Leaky Caldron 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. The underlying policy, which I should have cited earlier as well as promotionalism, is NOT TV GUIDE DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Its the biggest telethon in Europe. Please see links to all previous editions. Leaky Caldron 21:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that the immediacy makes deletion review a little impractical, but I relied also on the proposed deletion by the editor I trust most here, Kudpung. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but it was a week ago. You may trust him more than you trust me, but I would be grateful nevertheless if you would restore urgently. Thanks. Leaky Caldron 21:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I can make errors and so can he. Restored and unprotected. Is that the version intended?

Thanks. It needs to be the Children in need 2011 version (lower case need). It will need to be renamed to upper case the "need" but that can be done later. Leaky Caldron 21:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

restored also, I see you've been updating the other, so I didn't replace it. If you can merge the stuff, I can delete and redirect whatever works for you. I'll be around. I did not mean to imply I did not trust you. but the manner of the other editors comments, (which included this , as well as the multiple deletions of earlier copyvio & sketchy versions, probably had a prejudicial effect. And Kudpung, like me, is not in the UK. 22:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Too late, someone has redirected it, so history versions no longer available. For historic notability all that was required was to type Children in Need into search. About 10 yrs worth there. Leaky Caldron 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The history versions should be available behind the redirect. Find the p. for the redirect, & open edit history. If not, I'll still be able to look for them, but it might be simpler tomorrow. In fact, seeing the article for the 2010 is what gave me some doubts in the first place. We do have a guideline for handling films in production--ow to handle shows like this in advance is a problem--what is probably needed is references to good newspaper or magazine articles discussing extensively in advance, and avoiding emphasis on the time of the program, etc. If they were there in any of the versions, they weren't noticed. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The current version will soon catch up, I'm sure! Leaky Caldron 22:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

for my edification

Dear Sir - Does this article belong ? I looked into notability guideline and found nothing for religious folks. This particular preacher does not seem anything notable about him. Please reply on my talk page, if you do not mind. Standard2211 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a full NY Times article on him. That's probably enough for notability. It doesn't necessarily require two good sources if one is truly selective and reliable. In judging notability of people, we go by the sourcing according to the WP:GNG. unless there's some special criterion or some reason to think otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Department of Sociology, University of Karachi REPLY

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

--Faizanalivarya (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to move deleted article to user namespace

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Manicjedi's talk page.
Message added 04:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ANSWER TO YOUR WONDERFUL REPLY

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

--Faizanalivarya

List of scientific end-scenarios

Hi DGG. You tagged List of scientific end-scenarios for speedy deletion under A10, but you didn't indicate the existing article on the subject. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Grandma's Gifts

Hi, I saw you deleted this under G8, but must admit I'm confused – I don't see that the page when deleted was a redirect at all? Do you mind if I move the user's subpage there and undelete to merge histories? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 02:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I had deleted and then realized my error and restored the article, but forgot to restore the talk page also. (that's what G8 is also for) I've now done that. My apologies for any confusion. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Userspace req

Could you please userspace Pool TV to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Pool TV? I'm sure it can be worked on a bit and restored. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 03:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Done -- and it was only prodded, so feel free to move it to mainspace whenever you think it can pass an AfD if there should be one. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

deletion of Bruce George (entrepreneur) Wikipedia page

I am the creator of the page and was seeking clarity about the deletion of the work. I checked the resources and made sure that the links worked. I am in no way advertising for him. Please let me know what the problem was with the page I created. Thank you. Giftdink (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Shawn

George Ho (formerly Gh87)'s bad editing

I've seen you criticize George Ho about his deletion nominations. You weren't the first to do so, as seen in this section, for example. And I criticized different types of his editing in this section. No matter that he tagged it as WP:Wikihounding, my points were valid, as others have echoed my sentiments. I must ask why he is still allowed to nominate and/or propose articles for deletion when it is clear that he doesn't understand the deletion process, as recently as this incident? As that link shows, he still doesn't fully even understand WP:Notability. It was already suggested that he stop nominating articles for deletion because he doesn't know what he's doing (see that first link). Yet he's still doing it. He doesn't seem to listen at all, another example being that he continues to start sockpuppet investigations about IPs[15] despite having been told more than once that such investigations are not done. Further, he is hell bent on wiping away all All My Children character articles, more so because it is a cancelled show than having anything to do with the state of the articles themselves. Some of these articles can provide notability and/or be fixed up, and he just ignores that, judging these articles on their current state. He recently proposed that two soap opera writer articles be deleted, Margaret DePriest and Lorraine Broderick. I'd never heard of the former (who has also written for prime time), but the latter is a well-known, Emmy-winning soap opera writer. And some books on Google Books confirm this. But, no, this user does not check thoroughly; he just glosses over things, and if he doesn't see notability instantly, he nominates for deletion. He looked right over Tina Cole, and rather focused on these soap opera writers. Only after I pointed this out,[16] did he tag Tina Cole for something.[17]

I am so tired of this user fouling up Wikipedia. Is there nothing that can be done? I bring this to you because not only do you care about soap opera articles, you have also criticized his editing. 78.155.208.9 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I see this address is a blocked proxy. I am more likely to take complaints about an editor seriously if they come from a named account I know to be a responsible editor.

However, since I have talked with him about some of these matters before, I'll take a look at what he's doing sooner or later, as part of my normal follow up which I always try to remember DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

George Ho has been irritating me too with his deletions of public domain Argentine cinema images. Any thoughts on the AFD of Resignation of Silvio Berlusconi? I have no objections to merging but think its a pretty important event in Italian politics given the looming crisis.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at his editing and Afds, I disagree with him a good deal, but I don't think the AfD work justifies banning from the field. That's a very drastic remedy; we have very rarely used it, and only when it amounts to disruption, not just error. Something like this would have to be proposed at AN/I, and I very strongly advise anyone against going there except with an extremely strong case. It suffices to oppose the AfDs. It would help even more to strengthen articles--the surest defense against AfD deletion is sufficient really substantial & really reliable references. Most soap opera articles, perhaps even more than many other subjects, could use considerable improvement in this--and other--regards. Most people, myself included, are reluctant to defend an article in any field that may technically meet the requirements, but is not a reasonably good article. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Grantham Institute for Climate Change

Hi David,

Thank you for your comments on the previous version of the Institute's Wiki entry. I certainly appreciate the mistakes that were made previously and have tried to take on board the spirit of Wikipedia in creating a more streamlined, and I hope, more neutral article on the Institute. Would you be willing to look at this and comment/edit to help me ensure that I am providing a more impartial commentary as you rightly identified there is a conflict of interest in that I work at the Institute.

There were certain areas (describing the themes) that would certainly sail close to the limits of the type of information to be put up but I wanted to give a flavour of what type of research is in each area without writing long winded sentences as before. I hope these are OK as without them it is difficult to appreciate what is studied under each.

Any guidance is warmly received as this is my first foray into Wikipedia!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjfibsb2 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

Any comments on my newest article would be appreciated. I want to learn from the best. I am actually amazed what I was able to do with Google searches, and actually reading what Google returned to me :-) Everything there is in the article is through Google which is why I left nothing unreferenced. I moved first to establish notability, and then whatever i could find on the career and personal life. I am somewhat content however i am sure there is more that can be done. Any guidance would be appreciated. Standard2211 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's getting there. The key problem remains, to what extent does showing that someone is frequently quoted by the media show they are notable? Decisions have gone both ways, but it's hard to justify notability by using just a list of such quotes as the primary source for notability; it helps when he's quoted specifically as being an authority by the NYT or similar. You can include a key sentence as a quote in the footnote. I made some formatting suggestions on the talk page also. But what is really needed is references about him.

Yes, a surprising amount can be gotten from Google; the trick is to scan through the entire list of results, no matter if it's in the hundreds. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) A list of search results is not a reference. You have to give each one separately, DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Issue with RFC listing

Hi, I followed up to your talk page from RFC feedback board. I requested an RFC on Talk:Taliban using {{rfc|pol}}, its been a few hours but the bot seems to not have listed it in the appropriate section. Can you help? Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am interested, but i consider the situation beyond my abilities; if you miraculously come up with a usable proposal, let me know and I'll comment then. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ford Theaters

I Did not create the article, I was cleaning it up and in the process realized its duplicity and made the same suggestion that you offered to the articles author.Questionable pulse (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, but when I thought it was you who inserted the copyvio, it's one thing to remove the comment from you page; it's another to mark it as vandalism. Vandalism implies a deliberate attempt to harm the encyclopedia Is that what you thought of what I said there? DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Bundle (software distribution) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bundle (software distribution) 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/Bundle (software distribution) 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. Pnm (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

205.208.160.5

Time to remove talk page access.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

done DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Kindly give opinion

Please give your opinion on regarding merging some articles at Talk:VIT University. Alokprasad84 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

User:George Ho

Our friend George Ho has decided to go no holds barred on Argentine movies with AFDs like El Hijo del crack. He does not appear to be aware that articles can be expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

another admin has given him an indef block. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what it is you are upset about by asking me to retract my comments. I'd like to add that's something I'll never do on wikipedia is retract what I say. I don't say things unless I mean them and I don't think I've said anything out of order. I have been perfectly fair with him at ANI by proposing he works with me and unless he drops the attitude and mass targetting of images and articles then I'm unlikely to be cooperative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(lurker) i'm with you, but you lost me at "When you mess with something I've uploaded or created you are messing with me"..."Believe you me I will make things bitterly difficult for you". the alarming thing is how he is symptomatic: vindictive deletions are tolerated; better not to stoop to that level; if following policy should make disruptive difficult, that is a bonus; let Nemesis do the work. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

yes, thats the point I was trying to make: over-prersonalized language always makes the situation worse, and , on a purely practical level, gives the other party an opening to complain. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD of Mark Rippetoe

I fixed up the Mark Rippetoe article after it got speedy deleted, but it now is going through the AfD process. I really think this article is firmly within the notability guidelines and not just because I authored it. I responded to the complaints on its AfD page by adding some additional sources and I just wondered if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it and letting me know what is lacking in terms of demonstrating notability. If you'd rather not, or you think it that it's truly not notable, that's fine too.

I'm just new at this and I'm hoping you can sum up the guidelines for me a little better. If this really doesn't belong on WP I'll let it go, but I'd hate to see this article get banished just because I was unable to conform or articulate the guidelines correctly.

Thanks friend. —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 21:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the guidelines are interpreted according to the way people want to interpret them. There are enough ambiguous terms in them to give a very wide range of flexibility. The article would have had no problems 3 years ago, but what will happen now, I cannot predict. The best approach is just as you say, to try to support it (the best support at this point would be 3rd party reviews of his books) but if it does not succeed, let it take its chances, and go on to other articles. I lost some too in the beginning. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt

David, in you co-nomination you refer to comments that I should have made, but (unless that was somewhere else) I have hardly ever participated in RFA debates, so perhaps you're mixing me up with someone else? --Guillaume233 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As this and the preceding comments show, I was working a little too fast last night. I changed to the name I should have used all along. my co-nom, Spartaz DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy. 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. Victor Victoria (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Was your use of an asterisk (*) instead of a pound sign (#) here intentional? (b/c your waiting for candidate to answer your question)? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

fixed to the standard # . I suppose it may well have been influenced as you said, but not consciously. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DGG. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guerillero.
Message added 04:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have a question about your question for me Guerillero | My Talk 04:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Cox wasan

Hi DGG, maybe I'm wrong, but please take a look at Special:Contributions/Cox_wasan: I don't know if he is a sockpuppet, someone who loves disrupt someone else's work, or someone who didn't understand how AfD works, but it seems the main (if not exclusive) activity on WP of this user is partecipating at deletion-discussions (on all subjects) and supporting the nom's rationale with a "Delete" vote and a two-three-four word-statement (usually "Fails notability for GNG" or just "Fails notability"). I checked dozens of his contribs but he doesn't seem have ever voted for "Keep", "Urserfy", "Merge" or at least "Weak Delete" an article, nor he seems have ever commented his "Delete" votes with real arguments or reasons in support, also when the discussions required that. He also started some really bad AfD, like (last ones:) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Blitzstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas DeSimone. Sadly, despite an AfD isn't a voting process, often this kind of lame, in-bad-faith users could influence the final result.--Cavarrone (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

only if admins take his !vote as supporting a seriously made notability or GNG argument. % of effect depends how cynical you are about admin care in closing. You must understand that as a reputed inclusionist I am not in the best of positions to complain. The usual way of dealing with this is first at every AfD he enters wgere he makes a poor argument, and second, perhaps, but only as a last recourse, if he does not get discouraged, after a while at an/i. Many good faith users come to Wikipedia to delete or keep everything in a particular field, but nobody across all fields irregardless. Suggested comment at a future stupid AfD he might bring, would be some variation on if this is the sort of AfD you bring, perhaps you should learn about deletion policy before bringing any more. '

However, many of the articles where he is !voting delete, do deserve to be deleted, and I've closed two of them as deletes myself just now. If you just say "insufficient sources to meet GNG" at AfD, just going at random, you will chance to be right about half the time. DGG' ( talk ) 20:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)